SB1007 is up!

[45superman]

I was wondering about that, too. Could I go to St. Louis and buy a bunch of 30 round AR 15 mags, bring 'em back into IL, and claim they were for coyote hunting?

[Nate7out]

Sorry, you guys were right.

 

"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:

11 (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or

12 similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be

13 readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10

14 rounds of ammunition; or

 

I guess we are assuming “or similar device” could mean tubular magazine on lever-actions. I wouldn't be surprised if it got interpreted that way. However this argument could just get us an amendment exempting all attached tubular magazines.

 

Lever guns that could be banned by SB1007:

 

Uberti 1860 Henry (13+1) (all versions)

Uberti 1866 Yellow Boy (13+1) (Sporting Rifle only)

Uberti 1873 Sporting Rifle Steel (13+1)

Uberti 1876 Rifle (11+1, .45-60)

Henry Golden Boy .17 HMR

Navy Arms 1866 & 1873 Lever action Rifles (? – website doesn’t list capacity)

Cimarron Firearms 1860, 1866 Yellowboy, 1873 Rifles

[Nate7out]

Here is an excerpt from a letter my coworker just wrote today. I think he has a good point, and a way to tie this into self defense. Unfortunately, it is less applicable because of the denial of the right to carry in IL.

 

His second paragraph has a great point also. I think we could get a good letter campaign based on the idea in his second paragraph, I know 45superman has done research on these groups like Joyce foundation for his blog. We could start a whole letter writing campaign showing evidence to the politicians that these anti-gun groups are just funded by the rich and have no grassroots support. We could show that gun control erodes our freedom and can only cost them votes.

 

 

The magazine ban is ridiculous. Anybody that knows anything about firearms knows that it only takes someone 1 or 2 seconds more to reload magazines. Thus someone shooting a 20 round magazine will do it 1 or 2 seconds faster than shooting two 10 round magazines. There are those that say "great, this will save lives." Actually, this type of law does not hurt the criminal (they already have the intent to murder, thus a law like this is a non-issue) this type of law hurts people like me. Why? I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon in 34 states, (ironically, not in Illinois.) When you carry a gun, you have a choice of carrying a spare magazine. However, most people do not because it is far more efficient to carry one larger magazine. A typical person carrying a firearm concealed does not have lots of "belt room" like a police officer. So we choose to carry a single 14 or 20 round magazine, instead of two 10 rounders. Its common sense. What is not common sense is the hyperbole and rhetoric coming from the sponsors. Even when speaking with Senator Cullerton's office, he and his people have no concept of firearms functions and how they are used properly. Its sad that the various legislators are fed information that has been proven wrong and discredited, yet they choose to write laws that will only impact people like me.

 

Did you know that there is no, none, nada, zip, zero, grassroots effort for these types of anti-gun legislation? There are thousands of websites that are pro-gun with messages boards with millions of posts. There are thousands of pro-gun groups that meet regularly, talk politics and swamp your mail and phones with pro-gun messages. There are no similar types of people or groups for the anti-gun side. None. There is just a collection of wealthy individuals that fund various anti-gun groups. Groups that do not allow people to join them, nor provide the flashpoint for grassroots efforts.

 

Got a response:

 

Thank you for your comments Mr. xxxx. As you probably know I generally

vote against such "do nothing" gun restrictions. I will take your opinions

into consideration

 

 

Brent Hassert

Deputy Republican Leader

State Representative, 85th District

630-739-7063/815-886-9300

[BadHugo]

You guys may be missing something. My Winchester 12 Ga. PUMP with a 7 round magazine extension will hold 11 Aquila shells that are only 1.5” long.

 

Do you think some scumbag prosecutor would pass up an opportunity to screw someone over to get his face in the paper?

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

it outlaws the magazine itself not the gun (therefore making the mag extension illegal) as far as im concerned your gun will say (2 3/4 in shells) on the side so technically the ammo is not made for the gun etc. kind of like throwing .22 shorts in a LR.

 

 

really we need to just stop it in the house. but the positive could be that if this does go through it will effect alot more people and we might just get some people mad enough to get off the fence and get in gear.

 

I would really hate to see anymore manufacturers move out (especially SA) but I would understand considering the hi capacity .45 XD is their biggest product right now. But if between Les Bear, Bushmaster, and others (if they go) therefore loosing alot of jobs and tax revenue we could prove how the dems are screwing this state over and maybe just maybe we could gain some big ground back!

 

Sometimes it does have to get worse before it gets better (unfortunately)

[whyzdom]

This is a pretty hot button topic on arf. Armalite has property in Iowa now, per Armalite the poster over there on arf.

 

 

So if we lose Les and Armalite from the quad city area, it's only going to get worse. A lot of people are talking of moving out of this state since the border is extremely close. I might actually consider moving to Iowa, at least there I can concealed carry.

[powderhead]

Well, I made the calls to the five committee members today. Just trying to do my part. I had a friend do the same.

On another subject. Has anyone tried to print out any threads from this forum? It's takes a lot of ink. This black backgroung makes for easy reading, but it's heck on the ink supply in the printer.

[LPD5408]

I agree on the it might get worse before it gets better. I have heard all the rumors and read them as well. Supposdly Armalight, RRA, Les Baer, and Bushmaster are possibly leaving. Not to mention all of the other smaller operations and support services for those companies. Plus you have to look at all the people willing to leave because of this ban, Doctors, Lawyers, Police Officers, Teachers, etc...

I to have called the five plus emailed three of the five. I also had a friend do the same and asked him to help pass it around.

[soundguy]

On another subject. Has anyone tried to print out any threads from this forum? It's takes a lot of ink. This black backgroung makes for easy reading, but it's heck on the ink supply in the printer.

 

 

To save ink, you might try copying the text to a word processor and printing the threads from there.

[Blaster]

Well, I made the calls to the five committee members today. Just trying to do my part. I had a friend do the same.

On another subject. Has anyone tried to print out any threads from this forum? It's takes a lot of ink. This black backgroung makes for easy reading, but it's heck on the ink supply in the printer.

 

Also at the bottom left of the forum you will notice a box where you can choose a lighter version of the forum. Also you can print topic by clicking on options at the beginning of the thread at top right of the page.

[Molly B.]

I have received several emails from Illinois voters concerned about SB1007 and have contacted their senators who voted for this bill. Below, with sender's approval, is one such email correspondence with his senator, Matt Murphy, who reportedly has an A+ rating with the NRA.

Molly B.

 

Please note this contact and response from the senator. I haven't heard further since my last. I have also e-mailed and phoned both offices for Rep Mathias to urge him to oppose SB1007. I will stay tuned.

Regards,

M. Abertario

 

 

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.senatormattmurphy.com:

Why did you vote for another stupid violation of my rights. Do you know that this bill is just another step in the agenda to try and grab guns and will make criminals of thousands of law abiding gun owners. It will never be enforceable and will only serve to penalize gun owners if they run afoul of the law.

I'm deeply saddened by your betrayal of the promise you made when I met you in Springfield in March during IGOLD and later that evening at the reception when I specifically asked your position on these gun issues and you said you supported my position. I don't see this yes vote on SB1007 as support, only as betrayal.

Sincerely,

M. Albertario

 

Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:33 AM

Re: Senator Matt Murphy: SB1007

I understand your disagreement with my vote. However, I never promised to vote against all gun control measures. What I promised is that I would oppose SB16, the defeat of which is the ISRA's number one priority this session. That bill has been abandoned by Mayor Daley's chosen senate sponsor in part because of my opposition. Others who would seek to represent you in the senate may not have been as willing as I to stand by you on this issue. I urge you to consider this reality, and the totality of my record on this issue, going forward. As always, I appreciate hearing from you. Please stay in touch. Matt

Senator,

Thanks for responding, I understand the priority of issues yet I see the impending 08 election and the timeline for the SCOTUS appeal vis a vis the age of certain justices and the small chance of getting a conservative judge appointed in this congress. Both parties are avoiding this issue like the plague and it will bite. The will of the people will not be denied. Constant erosion of our rights will come back to haunt those who vote to deprive the citizens of their rights. The gun magazine ban tacked onto child molestation legislation is another foul attempt to enforce a visable agenda on the lawabiding.

Please try to understand that I would prefer you never bringing home one penny in subsidies or pork, benefits or provision than to vote for a single bill that serves to dissolve my rights under the second ammendment. This I beleive is and will be the issue of the year if not the decade. If only you could see Illinois in light of the balance of the republic and realize the importance of the need to reverse the course set by Mayor Daley and Gov. Blago to control the state as well as the city and the county. There is no limit to Mr. Daleys quest for power and control and his puppets in congress and his agenda are visible to those of us paying attention.

See what they're saying http://www.thehighroad.org

 

Sincerely,

M. Albertario

[abolt243]

I just faxed all the memebers of rules, just a quick note saying that 1007 is ambiguous and poorly worded, won't reduce crime but will create hardship on law-abiding gun owners. Offered to forward more info if they desired. Asked that they let it die in committee.

 

AB

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

I will have to say this bill is written very badly. A LOT OF GRAY AREA.

 

10 "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:

11 (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or

12 similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be

13 readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10

14 rounds of ammunition; or

15 (2) any combination of parts from which a device

16 described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.

 

this bill never needed the tubular magazine exemption singe its not detachable.

the exemption for .22 rimfire is usually standard in these things but honestly its written so badly that it could be viewed both ways

 

however anyone with a semi-auto replica of belt or chain fed machine gun is pretty screwed

 

I hate to be the devil's advocate but just to trip Kownazki up I would ask him, why 11 rounds from a tube fed rifle would be less lethal than from a .22 walther pistol?

 

I think the truth is that they know SB16 is political suicide but this gives them what they want for now since we all know that 10 rounds won't kill their enchanted Chicago unicorns but 11 will get them every time.

[Molly B.]

SB1007 was assigned to House Executive Committee today. No hearing date set yet - Illinois gun owners stopped SB16, let's stop this one - start Tuesday 9 a.m. let's stand up for Illinois gun owners. Bob Biggins and Dan Bradley are listed as favorable but after what happened in the Senate - I just don't know - anyone else know?

 

Tuesday - 9 am - let's roll

 

Let's not forget Speaker of the House - Please contact Speaker of the House Michael Madigan and voice your opposition to this kind of legislation - (217) 782-5350

 

Chairperson : Daniel J. Burke (217) 782-1117 (773) 471-2299 (Cook) D

 

Vice-Chairperson : Joseph M. Lyons (217) 782-8400 ................. (773) 286-1115 (Cook) D

 

Republican Spokesperson : Dan Brady (217) 782-1118 ...................... (309) 662-1100 (McLean) R

 

Edward J. Acevedo (217) 782-2855 ................... (773) 843-1200 (Cook) D

 

Maria Antonia Berrios (217) 558-1032 ................... (773) 235-3939 (Cook) D

 

Bob Biggins (217) 782-6578 .................... (630) 941-1278 (DuPage) R

 

Richard T. Bradley (217) 782-8117 .................... (773) 794-9444 (Cook) D

 

Brent Hassert (217) 782-4179 ..................... (630) 739-7063 (Will) R

 

James H. Meyer (217) 782-8028 ...................... (630) 717-7141 (DuPage) R

 

Robert S. Molaro (217) 782-5280 .......................... (773) 838-1212 (Cook) D

 

Robert Rita (217) 558-1000 ...................... (708) 396-2822 (Cook) D

 

Angelo Saviano (217) 782-3374 .......................... (708) 453-7547 (Cook) R

 

Arthur L. Turner (217) 782-8116 ....................... (773) 277-4700 (Cook) D

[45superman]

I notice that it's not yet on the Executive Committee hearing schedule (the only hearing they currently have scheduled is for Wednesday). Could be they just haven't updated the schedule yet.

[Molly B.]

House Rule 21

. . . shall, no later than 6 days before any proposed hearing, post a notice on the House bulletin board identifying each . . . legislative measure . . . the notice shall contain the day, hour, and place of the hearing. . .

 

does that mean it will be 6 days before a hearing can be held?

 

Molly B.

[Lou]

I finally got a response from Kirk Dillard......a stupid form letter.

 

He has not returned my calls.

 

It looks like he folded like a house of cards like Millner.

 

 

I cannot express my anger without resorting to UN-PC words.

 

 

 

 

Dillard writes a good letter but votes as a RINO. :Angry!: :Angry!: :Angry!:

[ilphil]

House Rule 21

. . . shall, no later than 6 days before any proposed hearing, post a notice on the House bulletin board identifying each . . . legislative measure . . . the notice shall contain the day, hour, and place of the hearing. . .

 

does that mean it will be 6 days before a hearing can be held?

 

Molly B.

 

 

I would imagine it is like all the rest of their "rules" in that the leadership can change or ignore it whenever it suits their needs.

[Ashdump]

I finally got a response from Kirk Dillard......a stupid form letter.

 

He has not returned my calls.

 

It looks like he folded like a house of cards like Millner.

 

 

I cannot express my anger without resorting to UN-PC words.

 

 

 

 

Dillard writes a good letter but votes as a RINO. :Angry!: :Angry!: :Angry!:

 

 

What did it say? Just the usual "thank you for expressing your concerns with me, I'll take your views into consideration" crap?

[SmershAgent]

Dillard, Murphy, Milner, and Hultgren all claimed to be our friends and all had good (if not stellar) past performance.

 

If those four had done the right thing, SB1007 would be history now.

 

I'm disgusted with the lot of them. With someone like Kotowski, at least it doesn't come as a surprise when he tries to screw us.

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

once again ANOTHER reason for us to make our own rating system based on voting records not surveys.

 

 

I have had it with the RINOS

 

Blaster I would really like for us to have a rating section based on voting records. I volunteer to help how i can, I know some HTML etc. but if we could put our heads together on an efficient and effective way to format it and get the ground work laid then the rest would just be gong through the data and cataloging it. I think we could even have a sub section where we can put copies of email responses and newspaper articles from each rep/senator showing their stance so we could not only record their voting record but also document their "I support hunting" = "I will ban some guns" bs and hold them accountable in a way they have never seen before!

[sticks]

I would really like for us to have a rating section based on voting records.

If we had such a section, once compiled with supporting data, it could be used to show the NRA the discrepancy between their ratings & actual voting records; maybe the NRA might even take a look at how they rate politicians, in hopes of finding a better system. I know I have always relied upon the NRA ratings in the past.

[45superman]

Dillard, Murphy, Milner, and Hultgren all claimed to be our friends and all had good (if not stellar) past performance.

 

If those four had done the right thing, SB1007 would be history now.

 

I'm disgusted with the lot of them. With someone like Kotowski, at least it doesn't come as a surprise when he tries to screw us.

They (Cronin is another) would not even have needed to do anything--they would not have needed to vote against it (although I cannot for the life of me understand why they wouldn't choose to)--simply not voting would have been good enough. Instead, they chose to vote against rights.

 

They're Brady Campaign puppets, as far as I'm concerned.

[SmershAgent]

once again ANOTHER reason for us to make our own rating system based on voting records not surveys.

 

 

I have had it with the RINOS

 

Blaster I would really like for us to have a rating section based on voting records. I volunteer to help how i can, I know some HTML etc. but if we could put our heads together on an efficient and effective way to format it and get the ground work laid then the rest would just be gong through the data and cataloging it. I think we could even have a sub section where we can put copies of email responses and newspaper articles from each rep/senator showing their stance so we could not only record their voting record but also document their "I support hunting" = "I will ban some guns" bs and hold them accountable in a way they have never seen before!

 

We actually do have our own rating system based on actual votes cast. When you see people refer to "green", "yellow", "orange", and "pink", legislators, it relates to the number of pro and anti gun votes they've made.

 

You can see the House lineup here.

 

You can see the Senate lineup here.

 

These are based off the 2005-2006 session. So far, the only recorded firearms-related vote in 2007 has been SB1007. When I have time, I will update these sheets to reflect the outcome of bills in this session.

[Lou]

I finally got a response from Kirk Dillard......a stupid form letter.

 

He has not returned my calls.

 

It looks like he folded like a house of cards like Millner.

 

 

I cannot express my anger without resorting to UN-PC words.

 

 

:headbang1:

 

 

Dillard writes a good letter but votes as a RINO. :Angry!: :Angry!: :Angry!:

 

 

What did it say? Just the usual "thank you for expressing your concerns with me, I'll take your views into consideration" crap?

 

 

Here's is his form letter:

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for your input on the gun magazine legislation, large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This legislation now moves over to the House of Representatives for amendment. Fortunately, the sponsor excluded sportsmen, military, collectors, police and other groups - - plus the bill has a grandfather clause.

 

 

 

This legislation affects only ammunition in large quantities in limited circumstances and is not a gun ban. You will be happy to know .50 caliber and assault weapons are apparently defeated.

 

 

 

As always, I thank you for your valuable input and I continue to support the 2nd amendment, hunters and sportsmen.

 

 

 

Best wishes!

 

 

 

Kirk W. Dillard

 

~~~~~~~~~~ My Reply:

Dear Sen. Dillard,

 

Thank you for your form letter but I must respectfully disagree with you on this bill. It is an anti-gun bill and is typical strategy used by rabid anti-gun zealots such as Sen. Kowtoski. He was a lobbyist for anti-gun groups before being elected and I hurts me deeply to see you voting for his agenda along with the liberal Chicago/Cook County Democrats.

 

The strategy employed here is "death by 1000 cuts" where they incrementally take away our rights one cut at a time. This time ban standard capacity magazines {what anti-gun zealots call "large capacity ammunition feeding devices"} and then next step is to ban the firearms that hold them. You should know this is how they work.

 

I am especially disappointed with your YES vote because it encourages the tactics employed in passing this bill. The Democrats took an anti child predator bill, reworded it to an anti-gun bill and rammed it through the Senate before the opposition could react. Shame on you for encouraging such underhanded Democrat tactics.

 

Senator Dillard, I have supported you for years but I'm afraid that your YES vote on SB1007 will stick in my mind for a long time.

 

Respectfully,

 

Louis

[45superman]

Well written, Lou.

[SmershAgent]

Fortunately, the sponsor excluded sportsmen, military, collectors, police and other groups - - plus the bill has a grandfather clause.

 

Wow, I feel so much better!

 

What would have also had a nice ring to it would have been:

 

"Dear Lou, you will be pleased to know that SB1007 - the so-called "high capacity" magazine bill - was narrowly defeated in the Senate. I was joined by other suburban legislators, including Senators Milner, Cronin, and Hultgren in voting against this legislation. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future regarding issues of mutual concern"

 

See? How hard would that have been?

 

[ops144]

this whole thing stinks.....I DONT LIKE GETTIN BACK DOORED......

[mikew]

[sNIP letter from Dillard]

 

It IS a form letter. He's sent others the same thing.

[Ocellairs]

5/15/2007 House Added Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. ....a republican from Lake County!