mstrat Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:06 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:06 PM HB1855 I think this can be put in the bad column. Seems about par for the course coming from Acevedo. Because of the volume of firearms bills, I'm wondering what you folks think of two bad categories:* Bad - this mostly affects criminals; or places arguably reasonable restrictions; or creates hassles that might trip up law-abiding citizens* VERY Bad - this will, without a doubt, infringe the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms And maybe a similar good/VERY good breakdown as well.The idea being that when you contact your senator and rep, you have a quick list of "These are the bills I HAVE to mention to him/her" Or am I making this too complicated? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:11 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:11 PM HB1871 "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:11 (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or12 similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be13 readily restored or converted to accept, more than 1014 rounds of ammunition; or Again with the "10 rounds." Who comes up with this $#&%? I have numerous standard capacity magazines (i.e. they do not extend past the grip, and nothing special was done to make them hold more rounds) that are between 15-18 rounds. It's the norm. The only guns I own with less than 10 rounds are 1911s, or single-stack 22s. I honestly think they pull this "10 round" number out of their nether regions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:15 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:15 PM HB1781 This is a shell bill so it is hard to say what the intent is. Does anyone know Jack Franks? http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=18285 has to fire arms issues shown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:33 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 05:33 PM HB1871 "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:11 (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or12 similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be13 readily restored or converted to accept, more than 1014 rounds of ammunition; or Again with the "10 rounds." Who comes up with this $#&%? That would have been Bill Ruger, though he had 15 rounds in mind when the 1994 "Assualt Weapon" ban was being hashed out. Some say he though he was saving the industry, or at least his own company, but then the anti's changed his proposal to a 10 round limit. It was one of those reminders that we should never trust those that seek to compromise our rights away. http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted February 17, 2011 at 06:07 PM Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 06:07 PM OK--thanks, guys. I'm kinda busy now, but I hope to get 'em listed within a few hours (they always have to come in bunches, it seems). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:14 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:14 PM 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]If the sheriff can only deny based on what is in the law and it looks like it has reasonable restrictions we should be O.K. Remember the Illinois Sheriff's Association is supporting RTC, haven't heard that coming from the ISP. Besides doesn't the govenor decide on the appointment of the head of the ISP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:38 PM Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:38 PM OK--think I got 'em (didn't bother with the otter hunting/trapping one). Because of the volume of firearms bills, I'm wondering what you folks think of two bad categories:* Bad - this mostly affects criminals; or places arguably reasonable restrictions; or creates hassles that might trip up law-abiding citizens* VERY Bad - this will, without a doubt, infringe the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms And maybe a similar good/VERY good breakdown as well.The idea being that when you contact your senator and rep, you have a quick list of "These are the bills I HAVE to mention to him/her" Or am I making this too complicated? Thoughts? The idea has merit, but it's a little more than I want to take on. As we get farther along in the legislative session, and start seeing where the threats (and the opportunities) are shaping up, we'll most likely start some "Call to Action" threads, which will be finely targeted, with a few specific bills as the focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:40 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:40 PM As we get farther along in the legislative session, and start seeing where the threats (and the opportunities) are shaping up, we'll most likely start some "Call to Action" threads, which will be finely targeted, with a few specific bills as the focus. Ahh, of course. That's a much better idea. Told you I like to overcomplicate things. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:45 PM Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 07:45 PM As we get farther along in the legislative session, and start seeing where the threats (and the opportunities) are shaping up, we'll most likely start some "Call to Action" threads, which will be finely targeted, with a few specific bills as the focus. Ahh, of course. That's a much better idea. Told you I like to overcomplicate things. Thanks. You're doing great, Mstrat--thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted February 17, 2011 at 08:50 PM Share Posted February 17, 2011 at 08:50 PM I see what you mean mstrat but ussually vallinda, superman or vandermyde will make a "Call Now" thread and list specific bills that we need to hammer the phones about once Todd knows they're going to the floor shortly. superman beat me too it. magine that lol Thanks for organizing all this super! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted February 19, 2011 at 06:22 PM Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 06:22 PM They just added over 1000 house bills...... Anyone want to help here? HB2045 Sounds like it could be a good one??? Your thoughts?Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 relating to the provision concerning a minor under 14 years of age's access to firearms. Provides that this provision concerning the regulation of the storage of firearms is an exclusive power and function of the State. Provides that a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, may not regulate the storage of firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted February 19, 2011 at 06:38 PM Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 06:38 PM It looks like he majority of the bills are shell bills and many by Tom Cross. The one above if the only one that looks to be firearms related. It wouldn't hurt to double check me. My brain almost tuned to mush reviewing over 1000 bills written in governmentese. They filed HB1916 to HB2850 yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted February 19, 2011 at 08:12 PM Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 08:12 PM Just a typo, but:In the top post "HB 1872 - CRIM CD-LG CAPACITY AMMUNITION (Bans 11-round and bigger magazines) Introduced by Carol Sente (D)" should be 1871. Still looking through these new ones, but haven't seen any others yet except shell bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted February 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM They just added over 1000 house bills...... Anyone want to help here? HB2045 Sounds like it could be a good one??? Your thoughts?Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 relating to the provision concerning a minor under 14 years of age's access to firearms. Provides that this provision concerning the regulation of the storage of firearms is an exclusive power and function of the State. Provides that a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, may not regulate the storage of firearms. I just put HB 2045 in the "good" category--thanks. I'm afraid I'm not really able to take on bill watching right at the moment--sorry about that. Just a typo, but:In the top post "HB 1872 - CRIM CD-LG CAPACITY AMMUNITION (Bans 11-round and bigger magazines) Introduced by Carol Sente (D)" should be 1871. Still looking through these new ones, but haven't seen any others yet except shell bills. Ah--thanks (once again), Mstrat. Fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted February 20, 2011 at 12:04 AM Share Posted February 20, 2011 at 12:04 AM I think I've got a system now and I can get through the newly files bills pretty quickly. It also help that most of the 1000 bills were shell bills or revenue bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted February 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM Share Posted February 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM here is a hint when scanning bills, if it says TECH -- its a shell bill. If it doesn't, it has somehting to it. look for crim cd, firearm or FOID as those are where the majority will have in the title. keep your eyes on thing with ord protection or mental health. that's where I start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted February 24, 2011 at 02:06 AM Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 at 02:06 AM OK--thanks, guys. Think I have them all added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:48 PM Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:48 PM HB3634 - Harry Osterman - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT - This one REVERSES DIGGINS and Redefines the transport/case requirements to conform with the present wildlife code. HB3601 - Osterman - Same old vague definition of gang member. Makes it a class 1 felony to knowingly sell to a firearm to a gang member (even if he has a valid FOID card). A stiff penalty for hinging on "knowingly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:34 AM Share Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:34 AM just got e-mail from NRA.. says HB1599 will classify many handguns, rifles, and shoguns as assault weapons... i would say that makes it even worse bill then bad.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted March 6, 2011 at 07:13 PM Share Posted March 6, 2011 at 07:13 PM I just did a quick scan to make sure they didn't sneak any more bills in.They are up to HB3751 and SB2480 and the deadline is passed to submit new bills.The deadline is March 17th to pass "substantive" bills out of committee. Of course Madigan and Cullerton have been known to resort to Chicago Rules so anything goes. What we need to be on the lookout for now is those shell bills that can change in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:26 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:26 PM Buzzard brought this up in another thread, and I have a similar concern. Are we sure we want to make this a "Bad" bill? Mandatory prison sentences for felons with guns sounds A-OK to me. At worst, possibly file this under the "neutral" category? But I'm certainly open to any contrary opinions. Maybe I'm missing something, or failing to see the big picture? SB1589 - Crim CD Weapons Felon Imprison Red/Bad Senate Sponsor: Muñoz, Kotowski, CollinsStatus: Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that unlawful use or possession of a weapons by a felon who is not confined to a penal institution or who is on parole or mandatory supervised release is an offense for which the person shall receive a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:34 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:34 PM Buzzard brought this up in another thread, and I have a similar concern. Are we sure we want to make this a "Bad" bill? Mandatory prison sentences for felons with guns sounds A-OK to me. At worst, possibly file this under the "neutral" category? But I'm certainly open to any contrary opinions. Maybe I'm missing something, or failing to see the big picture? SB1589 - Crim CD Weapons Felon Imprison Red/Bad Senate Sponsor: Muñoz, Kotowski, CollinsStatus: Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that unlawful use or possession of a weapons by a felon who is not confined to a penal institution or who is on parole or mandatory supervised release is an offense for which the person shall receive a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. It seems like a good idea on first blush, however, I don't like to see enhanced penalties for committing the same crime but using a gun. What matters to those robbed, raped or dead that a gun was used instead of a knife, railroad tie, or whatever. To me this prejudices the system against gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:36 PM Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:36 PM Buzzard brought this up in another thread, and I have a similar concern. Are we sure we want to make this a "Bad" bill? Mandatory prison sentences for felons with guns sounds A-OK to me. At worst, possibly file this under the "neutral" category? But I'm certainly open to any contrary opinions. Maybe I'm missing something, or failing to see the big picture? This is one of the issues where I tend to show my "extremism." I know a lot of gun rights advocates disagree, and would argue that by giving ground on this, we can appear more "reasonable." I reject that argument, for a couple reasons. I think it's a mistake to focus on the tool, and not the user, by making it "more illegaller" to use a gun in committing a crime, than it is to commit just as vile, just as heinous, a crime without a gun.Advocates of "gun control" will never back off because we're "reasonable"--every inch we yield will only give them a new beachhead for further infringements. I suspect I'm in the minority in thinking this way, but it is an opinion I hold very strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:40 PM Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:40 PM And now I see that while I was engaging in my typical long-winded bloviations, Federal Farmer expressed pretty much the same thing, but far more eloquently and more succinctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:44 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:44 PM Superman, FF: I definitely see (and mostly agree with) where you're both coming from. I guess I just view this one slightly differently since UUW is a non-violent crime. It's not a question of making a heinous violent crime "more illegaler" ... but MANUFACTURING a whole new type of crime that shouldn't even be a crime if it's not committed by felons (or other prohibited persons).The simple fact is that UUW barely even exists anywhere else in this country, save for possession by felons. Whereas here in IL, anyone in possession of a loaded firearm is charged with UUW. Ideally I would love to trade support of this bill for anti support on one that reduced UUW by non-felons to a misdemeanor. Felon UUW == mandatory prison. Non-felon UUW == small fine.If exercising your right to carry was more like a traffic ticket, rather than a trip to the county jail, that would be a big step in the right direction (for purely practical, not ideologic reasons). When this bill is considered on its own with no such trade, however... I guess I would lean with you guys for your stated reasons. And since I'm not aware of any such trade being made, I guess I can concede to it being filed under the "bad" category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:52 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:52 PM And now I see that while I was engaging in my typical long-winded bloviations, Federal Farmer expressed pretty much the same thing, but far more eloquently and more succinctly. Bah! Liar! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:56 PM Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:56 PM Bah! Liar! LOL. See? Perfect example. I would have taken a couple paragraphs to call you a liar . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:59 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:59 PM Now I see the bill as seen through others eyes and I agree.....punish the criminal - NOT the tool. As Gilda Radner would say on vintage SNL...... "Nevermind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted March 22, 2011 at 01:26 PM Share Posted March 22, 2011 at 01:26 PM In an effort to not clog up the board with another thread I'll just flop this question here. I was in MO last weekend taking a class and a couple MO students were asking something I could not answer. The way our carry bill is being written, will a resident of MO be able to come to IL and take the courses for being an IL ccw instructor and then go back and offer the IL ccw course over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 22, 2011 at 01:41 PM Share Posted March 22, 2011 at 01:41 PM In an effort to not clog up the board with another thread I'll just flop this question here. I was in MO last weekend taking a class and a couple MO students were asking something I could not answer. The way our carry bill is being written, will a resident of MO be able to come to IL and take the courses for being an IL ccw instructor and then go back and offer the IL ccw course over there? My understanding is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.