Jump to content

HB-182 Update


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

Well they seem to be at it again.

 

Evidently, they have seen our alerts, NRA’s and ISRA’s, about HB-182. They have been whining some more about it and are still trying to get the Governor to veto the bill.

 

They latest screed says:

 

What is the current law?

Illinois law currently allows individuals to carry firearms on their own land, in their abode, or in their fixed place of business. In addition, carrying firearms is permitted for target shooting and hunting. Since 1961, Illinois has prohibited the carrying of concealed firearms on the person in public.

What would HB 182 do?

 

As currently amended, HB 182 would revise current law to allow a person to carry or possess a firearm on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an “invitee” with that person's “permission.”

 

What does HB 182 not do?

 

• HB 182 does not establish how permission would officially be granted to an invitee and does not clarify whether an invitee would be required to disclose to the inviter that he or she is carrying a firearm.

 

• Under HB 182, law enforcement would have no discretion in determining who is fit to carry concealed

weapons onto other people’s property and would not know who is carrying them. Of the states that allow concealed carry with a permit, 11 allow law enforcement, before issuing a permit, to determine whether an applicant has good cause to carry a concealed firearm and is of good character. HB 182 would deny law enforcement discretion to determine who is fit to carry a concealed weapon. And, by not requiring a permit, it would provide no way for law enforcement to know who is carrying concealed firearms.

 

• In addition, HB 182 does not adequately define an “invitee” for the purposes of the bill. Under current Illinois law, a person is an invitee in any place that he or she enters for a purpose connected to the property owner’s business or other activity permitted on the premises.1 For example, Illinois courts have decided that customers of businesses and restaurants, spectators at sporting events, job applicants, and babysitters are invitees.2

Bottom line - HB 182 would remove an important tool law enforcement currently has to protect the public.”

 

 

Where does one start with such a target rich environment….

 

 

They seem to forget that there has to be permission in the last paragraph. Yea I’m sure I’m going to invite the 13 year old babysitter to my house with a loaded gun. Un-flippin-believeable. But I’m not sure what is worse/sadder that they say this stuff or we have legislators that may believe it.

 

Anyways, We need to keep the pressure up and keep calling the Governor and keep the pressure up on him. The more the better. You guys keep working it from the outside, and I’ll work it from the inside.

 

Focus on why you should be committing a felony for shooting on private property with the owners permission?

Why you should be committing a felony because you take a gun with you when you travel?

Why it should be a felony to show someone your gun collection?

 

You get the point. The othersides argument are not even worth addressing. If they can’t figure out how many laws, someone is breaking to be standing guard over someone dealing drugs, then maybe they should put the medical marry jane down for a few minutes.

 

Keep up the good work guys.

 

The House has 30 days to transmit the bill to the Governor. He then has 60 days to sign it, veto it, amend veto it or let it pass without his signature.

LCAVHB182.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have argued, under the current law and court ruling, you can not have a handgun for self defense in a hotle room you are staying at.

 

here is an example of why we need HB-182.

 

http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewt...db2c70bea48c77b

 

 

Attempted robbery leads to gun fight

Armed victim fires back

 

Updated: Friday, 12 Jun 2009, 9:12 AM EDT

Published : Thursday, 11 Jun 2009, 6:53 PM EDT

 

NORFOLK, Va. - An attempted robbery led to a gunfight at a Norfolk motel Thursday. Three suspects, one armed with a handgun, stormed into a room at the Econo Lodge. Much to the surprise of the suspected criminals, one of the victims was also carrying a gun.

 

Police say two of the suspects were shot by the victim. One of the suspects died at the scene, the other was transported to a local hospital where he remains in critical condition.

 

The suspect who died has been identified as 22-year-old Dante Cooley of Virginia Beach. Police have not yet released the names of the other two suspects, one of which fled the scene and remains on the run.

 

The victim, who was also shot by one of the suspects and transported to the hospital is expected to recover.

 

Michael Collier works with the victims. He said, "[The victim] was returning fire in the middle of a robbery. That's all he was doing, and he's alive because of it. He's a quiet, mild mannered guy. He's worked with us four or five years. He is a real great guy."

 

Investigators watched surveillance video from the motel, but left empty handed because the video was either grainy or the cameras weren't working.

 

The two victims worked for Collier Electric. They were changing the lighting in Norfolk Public Schools making it more eco-friendly.

 

The victim who was not hurt returned to his home in the Richmond-Chesterfield area, which is also where Collier Electric is based.

 

Late Thursday afternoon, 15 rooms at the Econo Lodge reserved by Collier Electric were empty. All the workers left town as they normally do on Thursdays for the weekend, but this time they are unlikely to return.

 

Ironically, the Collier Electric employees stayed at the Econo Lodge because the motel was thought to be a safer place to stay at than where they were originally staying.

 

Police were called out to the Econo Lodge 89 times since June 11, 2008. Those calls included Assault, Robbery and Disturbing the Peace.

 

The case remains under investigation. Police believe the suspect who fled the scene may be driving a silver vehicle. If you have any information that could help police in this case, you're asked to call Crime Line at 1-888-LOCK-U-UP.

 

 

After rerading the story, email it fax it or send it to your state reps, senators and the Governor. Self defense should not be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: In the article there was not a single question or remark about why the victim was armed, gotta love the Commonwealth. If this was Illinois the report would name the armed robbers as "victims" and would be asking why the motel guest had a gun? Was it registered? Did he have a FOID card? On top of that the reporter would say that police have declined to prosecute the motel guest at this time pending further investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has their been a case such as this in IL?

 

In the Justifiable Us of Force section of the criminal code the word "dwelling" is used. Every attorney I've talked to who is very familiar with use of force says that's anywhere I'm staying: hotel, camper, tent, etc.

 

I understand case law would apply, but the criminal code defines "dwelling" as:

 

(720 ILCS 5/2‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑6)

Sec. 2‑6. "Dwelling". (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (:lol: of this Section, "dwelling" means a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle, or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.

(:thumbsup: For the purposes of Section 19‑3 of this Code, "dwelling" means a house, apartment, mobile home, trailer, or other living quarters in which at the time of the alleged offense the owners or occupants actually reside or in their absence intend within a reasonable period of time to reside.

(Source: P.A. 84‑1289.)

 

But then maybe this changes things.

 

(720 ILCS 5/19‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 19‑3)

Sec. 19‑3. Residential burglary.

(a) A person commits residential burglary who knowingly and without authority enters or knowingly and without authority remains within the dwelling place of another, or any part thereof, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense includes the offense of burglary as defined in Section 19‑1.

(:hmm: Sentence. Residential burglary is a Class 1 felony.

(Source: P.A. 91‑928, eff. 6‑1‑01.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when and has it already been sent to the gov.? Will this be taken care of with the senate and house adjourned or will we have to wait until next session? Probably, a stupid question, sorry but im pretty slow when it comes to this bills and law thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has their been a case such as this in IL?

 

In the Justifiable Us of Force section of the criminal code the word "dwelling" is used. Every attorney I've talked to who is very familiar with use of force says that's anywhere I'm staying: hotel, camper, tent, etc.

 

I understand case law would apply, but the criminal code defines "dwelling" as:

 

I do not believe the definition of dwelling is in dispute. The use of deadly force in those areas are not in dispute except for having an uncased firearm in such areas you do not own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when and has it already been sent to the gov.? Will this be taken care of with the senate and house adjourned or will we have to wait until next session? Probably, a stupid question, sorry but im pretty slow when it comes to this bills and law thing

 

I believe that the bill can be transmitted to the Gov by the clerk without the GA being in session. The Gov can sign anytime, the GA does not have to be in session. I also think that he has a third option. If he does not sign or veto within 60 days of receiving it, it becomes law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is that he neither signs it nor vetoes it. That way, he can shift the "blame' for it to the GA. But hey, he might just sign it so the Democrat party can take "credit" for "defending" gun rights......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all this bleeding over such a minor little fix in the law.

 

Folks ... imagine the PSH that will abound when a real carry bill hits the floor.

 

Illinois is the LAST STAND for these extremists, and they are going to pull out all stops. Illinois is the land of their sugar-daddy, the Joyce Foundation. And rich people love to buy policy. Money is powerful.

 

Thanks Todd ... and thanks everyone for writing, calling, and FAXing the Governor.

 

I sent another message tonight.

 

 

 

Speaking of buying politics, check out the latest from the VPC (heavily funded by the Joyce Foundation). Note the title. It's a blatant lie, even though they get to the truth in the text. They know most people read article titles only. I've written Joyce ... I shall see if they respond.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/06/18-15

 

"Over 90 Percent of Mexican Crime Guns Originate in U.S., New GAO Report Finds"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....is the clock ticking yet? Do we know if the Governor has received HB182 yet? Will we know if and when that happens?

 

 

According to the ILGA/Legislative Reports section, HB182 has not been sent to the Gov yet. I'm not sure if the GA has to be in session before it can be sent over. Maybe some political games going on here. Maybe just too much emphasis on the budget mess right now. Perhaps Todd can enlighten us.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys I'm back.

 

been out in DC all week at a conferance for the Operating Engineers.

 

1. The general assembly does NOT have to be in session for the bill to be transmitted to the Governor.

 

2. Kent yes there has been a court case called People v. Price. I've posted it here before.

 

we are back in session this week. They called a special session and the proclomation deals with the budget, BIMP bill, capital bill and other stuff. The special session is limited to those things in the proclamation. However, nothing stops them from convening a REGULAR session day the same day. So everything could still be the table, but I think we are not at the top of the food chain right now as they have a lot of other things pressing.

 

todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kent yes there has been a court case called People v. Price. I've posted it here before.

 

So........only 1 appellate district has this opinion out of 5 making it a minority decision? Do any of the other 4 districts have an opinion otherwise, perhaps 3 making it a majority decision the other way? I assume there is no state supreme court ruling.

 

The reason I'm asking is that I've been involved in a case where 3 out of the 5 appellate districts had ruled in my favor and my county where the case was being tried was within one of those districts. Without going into to much detail, 3 appellate decions had previously ruled the officer's reason used for pulling me over was not enough to warrant a stop. A hearing to squash and suppress the evidence was held and the judge agreed. All the county's evidence against me was thrown out. The county now had nothing to use against me. Case dismissed.

 

Outside the 1st Appellate District(Cook Co.) and perhaps the collar counties it's a stretch for a SA who's county is located in another appellate district to use a ruling against someone especially if his appellate district has ruled the other way. A bigger stretch yet is if 3 of the 5 appellate districts, a majority, have ruled the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been unable to verify any action by the IL Supreme Court and my attorneys are a little too busy today to answer my question so far today.

 

In by denying certification do you mean they declinded to hear the case? If they declined to hear it and made no ruling, how does that impact the other 4 appellate districts?

 

It my situation above 2 appellate districts had ruled against me, but my district and 2 others had ruled in my favor. The state supreme court has never made a ruling and am not sure if they've declined to hear a case on the matter.

 

I think you can see where I'm going here. If there is no true IL Supreme Court ruling on this matter and the other 4 appellate disctricts have no ruling either way, my district being one of them and it's make-up being more on the pro-gun side along with the other 3 districts, it doesn't effect me or the rest of the state too much. However, it does effect a large population of the state, specifically Cook Co. where the 1st Appellate District is located and the decision was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to one of my attorneys, failure to certify means the state supreme court declined to hear the case.

 

The 1st Appellate Court ruling means it's a mandatory ruling and must be followed in the 1st Appellate Court District and only a persuasive ruling not mandatory to be followed in the other 4 appellate districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kent --

 

yes they denied cert and refused to take the case. That while not binding on the other 4 districts, it has the appearance of giving it's blessing by the high court.

 

If SCOTUA refused to take the Chicago case, the otherside would be runiing around saying it is not an individual right that applies to the states accross the country -- even in the 9th. That is the practical side of what happens. I know the legal side. But the other side has been arguing all session that the Supreme Court denied cert and therfore Price is good law for the state. So we used that arguement to our advantage sayign we need to fix the law for the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That while not binding on the other 4 districts, it has the appearance of giving it's blessing by the high court.

 

That may be true in some cases, but in most it means the court felt the case had no merit to be heard.

 

I'm not arguing the law shouldn't be fixed. I'm just not that worried about the "abode" vs. "dwelling" arguement in any other part of the state except for a few colar counties. I don't know many judges or state's attorneys that are willing to risk not being retained or re-elected in a what I think is a private property issue especially in the rural areas.

 

The bad thing about this messed up ruling from the 1st Appellate Court is the fact that Mr. Price was no poster boy for the responsible gun owner. Perhaps that's the reason the state supreme court didn't want to touch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the fax number for Governor Quinn, I went to his state web page, non is listed.

Since nobody else has I will answer my own question. I called Governor Quinn's office at 312-814-2121 to ask him to sign HB182. I asked for his fax number it is 312-814-5512. I'm going to fax him as well.

 

Lets all call or fax or both. This bill has gone to his desk, lets get it signed.

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...