Illinois Rep. Mike Bost Goes Ballistic In 2nd Amendment Debate


Illinois Representative Mike Bost (Murphysboro), who exploded last year after he was given a massive bill just minutes before a vote on it on the House floor, once again launched into blasting the tyrants in the Illinois State House. This time it was not the Speaker of the House, but rather took aim at freshman legislator Scott Drury's comments about other Republican members of the House and their stand on the Second Amendment.

"Floor amendments should be some technical small change that we shouldn't have to worry about like this. But yet you bring a whole bill that has questions whether it is even constitutional," Bost said. "Folks, the process is really messed up. Quit! This is not the bill that everyone has debated…it is a ploy and once again your side of the aisle keeps trying to make ploys instead of dealing with the real issue. Keep playing games!"

"Do you know that one of the associations actually has a click-down of when we have constitutional carry in the state of Illinois? And you want to endanger your citizens and keep playing games like this? Vote no!," he said, as he threw the microphone forward over the desk.

However, when Rep. Drury said there were no "Constitutional scholars" in the House and then he accused Republicans of being two-faced that Bost launched into attack mode from across the room. The Speaker couldn't keep order and any red blooded American would side with Bost in Drury's clearly ignorant statements.

If that wasn't enough, Dury didn't know when to keep his mouth shut and pointed at Bost and said, "we don't want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon."

"You can't say 'our side of the aisle' on this issue, it's not about one party or the other," Bost said. "There was screaming on both sides of the aisle because he overstepped his bounds. The bill failed miserably."

The bill failed miserably by a vote of 76-31.

"As the House Floor Leader, it's my job to protect members of my party from false accusations or broad-brushing issues," Bost told the Mr. Vernon Reigster-News. "Concealed carry is not a Republican or a Democrat issue."

"The amendment that was added to the bill we were discussing was a 'may/may' carry bill," Bost said. "New York has a similar bill, and less than .01 percent of people get to carry. Under the amendment, someone would have to go to the local sheriff, who would do a background check, talk to people, then the sheriff may allow the person to petition the state for a concealed carry permit. Then, the state would do a background check and may issue a permit. That's two mays and makes it almost impossible to get a permit. The bill was flawed and I explained that problem."

Bost did receive support though, not siding with Drury. "Even the sponsor of the bill and those in support of it instantly apologized to me," Bost said. "They said, 'that's not us.'"

"There is nothing wrong with yelling to express yourself on the floor," Bost said. "But it has to be sensible."

The battle over concealed carry will continue in Illinois. According to the Associated Press:

Illinois Senate legislation touted as a compromise between Chicagoans weary of street violence and gun owners eager to legally carry concealed weapons elsewhere appears more restrictive than promised, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press. It will be redrafted before it's even filed, a spokeswoman said Monday.

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, had said the plan was a permissive concealed carry program. But the language indicates that Illinois State Police could deny permits to anyone unable to show they faced a violent threat or did not have a "proper reason" for carrying one — hallmarks of gun-permit laws in states with more restrictive rules.

Raoul's idea was to provide better control over permits for carrying concealed weapons in Chicago and Cook County with a review by local police. Raoul said last week that outside of Chicago, the concealed carry law would require review only by the state police. Raoul described his proposal as "shall issue," a less-restrictive means of screening permit applicants.

To gun-rights advocates, "shall issue" means an applicant gets a permit if he or she passes a background check and gets the requisite training. Raoul's initial legislation, however, is closer to a "may issue" law in that it would require an applicant to provide state police with "a proper reason for carrying a firearm" and prove that he or she "is a responsible person of good moral character" whose permit would be "consistent with public safety."

I think we need a little more men like Mike Bost who are not worried about what people think or how they are perceived, but make the stands for what is right. More power to Representative Bost!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print Friendly





Comments

comments

18 thoughts on “Illinois Rep. Mike Bost Goes Ballistic In 2nd Amendment Debate

  1. The Peoples Party says:

    I am so happy Mike Bost stood up and fought or our rights and liberty. He knows better than anyone that our biggest enemies ARE the VERY one taking all our defences, ammo and guns, hunting rights away just to use against us in our own death 2 years later. Buy a gun now, you will never be able to again. Former gun hater that is know getting my right to bear arms and I love every moment of it.

  2. sparkplug says:

    The major clause of the "Brady Gun Bill" continues to be unconstitutional. State authority mades the decision as to what is implemented in each state, per Circuit Judge John Roll´s decision and order, as below.

    http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/bradybil.html

    The following is extracted:from the original and is noted by quotation marks:

    “By invalidating the mandatory background check provision, the requirements of the
    other challenged provisions become optional. For instance, 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(6)(C), which requires the CLEO to provide reasons to the denied purchaser for that determination, becomes elective depending on whether the state chooses to perform background checks. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(6)(B), which orders the CLEO to destroy the sworn statement within 20 days of the date of the transfer again will depend upon the state's voluntary decision to perform the background check. When viewed accordingly, the remaining provisions do not commandeer the states in any way and are therefore constitutional.

    O R D E R
    The Court finds that in enacting section 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(2), Congress exceeded its
    authority under Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, thereby impermissibly encroaching upon the powers retained by the states pursuant to
    the Tenth Amendment. The Court further finds that the provision, in conjunction
    with the criminal sanctions its violation would engender, is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Sheriff Richard Mack's complaint for
    declaratory and injunctive relief is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court is
    directed to enter a judgment declaring 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(2) to be unconstitutional.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant United States of America and its agents
    are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from further enforcing 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(2)

    All other provisions under review are deemed severable from the offending subsection and are found not to violate the United States Constitution.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are deemed MOOT by virtue of this order and this case is DISMISSED.

    Dated: June 28, 1994

    JOHN M ROLL
    United States District Judge “

    MFHotTopics
    OE v2.00 (c) 1996 Mediafax Technologies, Inc.

  3. Douglas W. Rodrigues says:

    Condescending remarks and insults are the usual put-downs from the left. However, in general, anyone on the hard core left cannot be expected to protect either themselves or us citizens because mostly the left will prefer academic arguments as being more important than actual protection. Remember the gun grabbers of long ago during the Watts riots who went around trying to borrow guns from gun owners? After the riots were over, they went back to their gun grabbing agenda as though the riots never happened? That would indicate a lack of common sense, or gross stupidity. The psychosis on the left is palpable. They have a fear of guns, but not of the criminals who use guns. They believe that disarming law abiding citizens is equivalent to disarming criminals? They believe that a victim with a gun to protect themselves is unsafe, but a disarmed victim is somehow safer when at the mercy of a criminal? If this twisted thinking isn't caused by a mental illness, what is it?:

  4. Too bad there isn't a whole cabinet full of Mike Bosts. It seems he's out-performing Senator McCain on this issue. Can't believe McCain let us down. Go Mike. Too bad you're not in AZ.

    • McCain has been a traitor since his failed presidential run. He's an old stupid fool and regardless how he stands on ANY other issue he should be arrested and tried for treason for even introducing amnesty.

  5. The Left has been trying to disarm Americans for generations. There is nothing they won't say or do to get what they want, and that obviously includes using those beautiful, innocent children in Newton as political props. And the only way to defeat the Left is to feel and use as much passion and will as they do.

  6. Well, well... it's time we all stand up and speak out agaisnt the undermining of our Constitutional rights as Rep.Bost has done here. Liberals in America are cowards with nothing but power gain and ego stroking in mind. Standing up to them loudly and with a show of true strength is the only way to overcome their agenda and save our nation. Get loud, people, but have something to say and be ready to back up your words with action. The revolution begins.

  7. The laws sponsored by the states are a direct violation of the Constitution and all infringe on the right to carry to protect Yourself. there is nothing in the Constitution that permits the states to infringe on the individual right too own or use a gun and the constitution trumps any state laws or "regulations". Under the constitution only the areas not directly addressed by the constitution fall under the states right to legislate making all state laws in violation of the constitution.
    WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?????

  8. BigUgly666 says:

    Just EXACTLY what part of, "shall not be infringed" does anyone in Illinois fail to comprehend?

  9. danman1213 says:

    Never give up the fight..liberals are communist and don't even know it.. Fight fight for what is right..

  10. Mike Bost for President!!!!

    • WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER 'SO CALLED' PRESIDENT FROM CHICAGO, even if he does make a good point. Look at the crap Obutthead said, and look at what is doing, I was born in Chicago, and will never live there again!

  11. i live outside peoria illinois and i'm not in bosts' district. but i called his office today and thanked him for showing the guts to stand up to the liberal chicago thugs. more people need to call their elected officials and get involved.

  12. Gee wizzzzzzz a real man with something to say ,, and "THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER, etc etc" Sneaky dealings. :(

  13. Thank you Representative Mike Bost for standing up for what "we the people" need.