53 replies to this topic

[steveTA84]

Everytown now on it

[Mike357]

Talked to both offices this morning Tom Weber and Craig Wilcox

[Markeb2800]

Called and emailed.  My Rep. is pro-2nd Amendment.

[steveTA84]

My Rep spoke at IGold. Enough said

[Hatchet]

mines a co-sponsor... 

[Raw Power]

The antis are beating us on witness slips, looks like due to Everytown and other national agencies having people fill out slips dishonestly again.

[steveTA84]

A call to action email Needs to be sent (or re-sent) out for SB1966. We’re down by like 300

[bmyers]

A call to action email Needs to be sent (or re-sent) out for SB1966. We’re down by like 300

 

You are looking at the wrong thing. We are beating them by 5,000+

[Hatchet]

http://my.ilga.gov/H..._=1558384770586

 

• Proponent: 1872
• Opponent: 7477
• No Position: 9

[steveTA84]

A call to action email Needs to be sent (or re-sent) out for SB1966. We’re down by like 300

 
You are looking at the wrong thing. We are beating them by 5,000+

Yes, but the antis also sent out a CTA for the main bill

[chicagoresident]

Called mine, he was 100% the most solid Iinois senator on gun rights but he voted it yea on 3rd reading?!? Am I overreacting, is this showing he supports it or is there another reason I'm not aware of? I called and reminded his office I was a single issue voter and a campaign donor only for that reason.

[springfield shooter]

I think you are looking at the original bill, not the "Fix The Foid" amendment.

[steveTA84]

I think you are looking at the original bill, not the "Fix The Foid" amendment.

Read the very top post. Everytown is pushing for the whole bill on top of the amendment. We are down by 300 or so on the whole bill and have mopped the floor with them on the amendment

[InterestedBystander]

SB1966, a bail program passed the Senate and was sent to House. Willis submitted HCA1 which guts the ORIGINAL SB1966 and becomes the bill. The original bill has Senate votes and original bill witness slips and HCA 1 has House committee votes and witness slips.

Out of committee, there are no additional witness slips to be filed.

...AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1966

AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend Senate Bill 1966 by replacing everything after the enacting clause with the following:

Edited by InterestedBystander, 23 May 2019 - 10:05 AM.

[Hatchet]

But SB1966 doesn't exist anymore. They gutted the original bill with the amendment. its now SB1966ham001.

 

The anti's are filling slips on a bill that doesnt exist anymore.

 

And i think slips stop getting counted 24 hours after the committee ends.

[InterestedBystander]

Called mine, he was 100% the most solid Iinois senator on gun rights but he voted it yea on 3rd reading?!? Am I overreacting, is this showing he supports it or is there another reason I'm not aware of? I called and reminded his office I was a single issue voter and a campaign donor only for that reason.

Your Senator does not vote again unless the House passes the HCA 1 and sends it back to Senate for concurrence. The votes you show are the original bail bill when it passed the Senate but has been replaced by the HCA

[InterestedBystander]

But SB1966 doesn't exist anymore. They gutted the original bill with the amendment. its now SB1966ham001.
 
The anti's are filling slips on a bill that doesnt exist anymore.
 
And i think slips stop getting counted 24 hours after the committee ends.

Unless it has changed, one chamber stopped slips at the time committee ends and the other took slips through end of day of committee.

From ILGA FAQ

Q. How long do I have to submit a witness slip or update an existing witness slip?

A. Senate - allows you to submit a witness slip up to the end of the day of the committee hearing's scheduled date.

A. House - allows you to submit a witness slip up to the conclusion of the committee hearing.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 23 May 2019 - 10:12 AM.

[G214me]

Called mine, he was 100% the most solid Iinois senator on gun rights but he voted it yea on 3rd reading?!? Am I overreacting, is this showing he supports it or is there another reason I'm not aware of? I called and reminded his office I was a single issue voter and a campaign donor only for that reason.

He voted YEA on the bill and then it went to the house where the fix the foid garbage was added AFTER his YEA vote. when it comes back for approval he will vote NO.

[chicagoresident]

Called mine, he was 100% the most solid Iinois senator on gun rights but he voted it yea on 3rd reading?!? Am I overreacting, is this showing he supports it or is there another reason I'm not aware of? I called and reminded his office I was a single issue voter and a campaign donor only for that reason.

He voted YEA on the bill and then it went to the house where the fix the foid garbage was added AFTER his YEA vote. when it comes back for approval he will vote NO.

OK, this makes sense, read the original and it was in regards to having public defenders at bond hearing which is a decent criminal justice reform bill.

It got sent to SeaWorld where it was put in a blender, chugged down by Shamu, and crapped out as SB1966 House Ammendment 001 with absolutely nothing to do with the original bill.

Do they only pull these fast pass shenanigans with gun bills? They have a supermajority, is it just to sneak it by as a courtesy for the downstate Dem's and turncoat R's?

Edited by chicagoresident, 23 May 2019 - 10:32 AM.

[G214me]

 

 

Called mine, he was 100% the most solid Iinois senator on gun rights but he voted it yea on 3rd reading?!? Am I overreacting, is this showing he supports it or is there another reason I'm not aware of? I called and reminded his office I was a single issue voter and a campaign donor only for that reason.

He voted YEA on the bill and then it went to the house where the fix the foid garbage was added AFTER his YEA vote. when it comes back for approval he will vote NO.

OK, this makes sense, read the original and it was in regards to having public defenders at bond hearing which is a decent criminal justice reform bill.

It got sent to SeaWorld where it was put in a blender, chugged down by Shamu, and crapped out as SB1966 House Ammendment 001 with absolutely nothing to do with the original bill.

Do they only pull these fast pass shenanigans with gun bills? They have a supermajority, is it just to sneak it by as a courtesy for the downstate Dem's and turncoat R's?

 

They pull this BS all the time. One of our greatest strengths is that downstate Democrats have lots of pro gun people in their territory that are probably making it clear that they will be voted out if the support tis garbage. I have no idea why downstaters keep electing more stooges for Madigan.

[Illini2A312]

Is there any general etiquette/best practices when contacting your rep? Was thinking of pointing out the financial impacts of the bill (lost business/more people inclined to move out of IL due to revenue cap/red tape).

[steveTA84]

FYI

[mauserme]

 

 

A call to action email Needs to be sent (or re-sent) out for SB1966. We’re down by like 300

 
You are looking at the wrong thing. We are beating them by 5,000+

 

Yes, but the antis also sent out a CTA for the main bill

 

If they want to support the original bill, as introduced, that's fine. We have no position on the Public Defender Bail Program.  And we don't follow the anti's lead.  Never will.  We whomped 'em on the amendment which is the legislation we all need to oppose.

 

In any event, the ability to slip in on SB1966 and/or HCA 1 ended at midnight on 5/21/2019.

[mauserme]

Is there any general etiquette/best practices when contacting your rep? Was thinking of pointing out the financial impacts of the bill (lost business/more people inclined to move out of IL due to revenue cap/red tape).

You will likely speak to a staff member, who will be interested in whether or not you live in the district and your position on the bill. They may ask your address.

If you do speak to your Rep, cost, ability to apply in person, the intrusion into our privacy fingerprints represents are good point to bring up. So is the fact that the existing FOID Act has already been found unconstitutional, a decision being appealed by the state.