Jump to content

Quick Reference List: Gun Bills in 2011/2012 session


45superman

Recommended Posts

The bill does not attack “the gun” per se. It attacks conduct. As a felon, they are prohibited from possessing a firearm. So the bill is directed at those who don’t and won’t follow the rules.

 

 

We have always said that 80% of the crimes are committed by a small percentage of people who are recidivists. This is aimed at them by removing the possibility of probation i.e. a conviction with no time served.

 

 

It’s not anti-gun it is about changing behavior and letting people know that there is no revolving door justice system for continued felon in possession violations.

 

 

Since I don’t represent felons, not a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amendment #1 was just filed on HB148.......

 

 

And it says:

 

AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 148 on page 16, by

3 inserting immediately below line 14 the following:

4 "(xiv) Any public library without the authorization or

5 approval by the governing entity of the library."

 

Not too big of a give-back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody who's had such discussions with the opposition provide any insight into their reasoning regarding gun-free zones (based on your discussions with them; not speculations or "omg, the crazy left-wing..blahblah" rants)?

 

I'm truly curious what the motivations are for disarming people in places like libraries, or elsewhere where no other security and screening takes place. What, in their argument, makes a library any different from any other public location?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody who's had such discussions with the opposition provide any insight into their reasoning regarding gun-free zones (based on your discussions with them; not speculations or "omg, the crazy left-wing..blahblah" rants)?

 

I'm truly curious what the motivations are for disarming people in places like libraries, or elsewhere where no other security and screening takes place. What, in their argument, makes a library any different from any other public location?

 

public library is owned by the local city... so my guess (and its just a guess) is it is a government building like any other that we cant carry in (in 95% of cases we cant)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

public library is owned by the local city... so my guess (and its just a guess) is it is a government building like any other that we cant carry in (in 95% of cases we cant)...

 

So let me expand my question even further. :thinking:

 

What is the argument against carrying in an un-secured government building?

 

This seems especially ridiculous since entering a government building is typically unavoidable for citizens. You can't "take your business elsewhere", like you could if a private property store or restaurant was a rights-free zone.

 

Edit: My suspicion is that at some point in the past, they allowed government buildings somewhere to be rights-free zones. Anti-rights people elsewhere took that as a precedent and did it not for particular stated reasons, but rather because it was one more limitation on a right they want to erode. As such, any arguments they have are purely after-thought justifications rather than reasons for limiting carry.

 

But this is just speculation. I'm curious if anyone involved in these kinds of negotiations can provide more real insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me expand my question even further. :thinking:

 

What is the argument against carrying in an un-secured government building?

 

This seems especially ridiculous since entering a government building is typically unavoidable for citizens. You can't "take your business elsewhere", like you could if a private-property store or restaurant was a rights-free zone.

that is the real question now... oh i agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must remember - this is the government, it doesn't have to make sense. :thinking:

 

I know you're probably just making a joke here... But keep in mind this amendment was pushed by a particular person, or group of people. Somebody, a thinking reasoning person, made an argument to the bill's authors and sponsors and asked them to outlaw carrying firearms in libraries.

 

I'm looking to hear that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know where this came from, Google "guns, library, Michigan" and read the stories. Some "activists" are pushing the envelope there and are causing reverbrations all over the country, even here in little old IL where we can't carry anyway. Just another example of the situation where something may be "legal, moral and within your rights to do, but it's not very smart to do it at this time."

 

As to the restricted places. I don't agree either. But at this time in the arena of "discrete carry", it seems to be commonly accepted that there are places that are "too sensitive" to allow carry of firearms. Courthouses, jails, other federal buildings (fed law). That gets translated as "and tax supported entity" and pretty soon you've got a list a mile long.

 

While I don't agree with the library thing, at least there is an "opt out" for individual libraries. I assume that "governing entity" would be the board if that's who makes the ultimate decisions for the library. Many are supported by cities or counties or townships and therefore controlled by those boards. The way to do that would be to entreat your board to allow carry by licensed persons and not have to give out individual permission.

 

Remember, this amendment was just filed on the current version of the bill. I can tell you, that's not the final version, so amendment 2 would probably negate amendment 1. This thing is very fluid right now. Expect more changes.

 

But the situation overall is looking good.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight. :) Like I said... this was all curiosity about the history, and reasoning.

And to be perfectly clear, I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or crying about this amendment (or other restrictions on carry).

I understand the practical/political need to make concessions.

 

But the situation overall is looking good.

 

I agree 100% :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

New bills to add to the list:

 

 

 

HB3794 - Concelaed Carry Firearms filed 10/5/2011.

 

Haven't read the whole thing - its a shall issue bill with the County Sherrifs being the issuing authority, but makes carry in each county contingent upon approval of the county board.

 

 

HB3796 - Firearm Owners ID Duration filed 10/5/2011.

 

Would make the FOID card valid for the life of the holder.

 

 

HB3809 - Gangs No Firearm filed 10/5/2011.

 

A rehash of HB3601

 

 

HB3845 - Unwanted Firearms filed 10/19/2011.

 

Mandates that municipalities establish a turn in program under which unwanted firearms can be surrendered to the local police department.

 

Just another feel good bill that will do nothing to reduce crime as only the guns at the backs of underwear drawers will be turned in. Could make some sense, though, if the guns could be sold to quailified individuals and the money used to enhance the local police department.

 

 

 

 

Edited to clarify HB3794

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I can see it now with this one. Sheriff will have too much say over who gets permit or not. This one could be full of corruption.

 

HB 0112 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (defensive firearm carry, administered by sheriff's department)

[/color]

 

This is the way it's done in other state's, and it works. The local Sheriff's dept. is responsible for holding the training course, running extensive background checks, taking fees, and issuing Conceal/Carry permits to it's residents. Honestly, I don't know why IL hasn't started this before now and viewed it as an opportunity for revenue. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see it now with this one. Sheriff will have too much say over who gets permit or not. This one could be full of corruption.

 

HB 0112 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (defensive firearm carry, administered by sheriff's department)

[/color]

 

This is the way it's done in other state's, and it works. The local Sheriff's dept. is responsible for holding the training course, running extensive background checks, taking fees, and issuing Conceal/Carry permits to it's residents. Honestly, I don't know why IL hasn't started this before now and viewed it as an opportunity for revenue. ;)

emphasis added

 

Maybe I'm missing your point... but no, it doesn't work. Just ask the CCW permit holders in NY, CA, HI... oh wait, there aren't any! At least not outside of the castle walls of the kings and lords. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum pistolchic.

 

If I remember correctly, HB112 is a shall issue bill which would avoid the California type probelms under a may issue system. I haven't done a line by line campaarison of this bill and HB148 (not recently, anyway) but I think the biggest difference might be in defining which agency, sheriff or state police, is the issuing agency. I don't hink that would be a huge sticking point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...