InterestedBystander Posted December 29, 2018 at 02:29 AM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 02:29 AM Democrat site (with updated link) http://illinoissenatedemocrats.com/images/PDFS/2018/BillsEffective1.1.2019b.pdf Republican list https://drive.google.com/file/d/198xPCTODiDFqgMxZBm86i9Mtq9TCWG3b/view?usp=sharing edit: a better Republican list with descriptionshttps://ilsenaterepublicans.blob.core.windows.net/antilles/resources/9f6bd530-d93c-454d-95fa-0e8f0807a781/Jan1NewLawsCategorizedUPDATED.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted December 29, 2018 at 02:32 AM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 02:32 AM Number of laws that enrich cronies? The overwhelming vast majority . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted December 29, 2018 at 03:01 AM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 03:01 AM HB 04231 Allow hunters to wear solid blaze pink colored clothing, in addition to blaze orange colored clothing, if they are hunting during either the deer or upland game bird seasons. 2nd Amendment Issues Thank God they got that sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squints08 Posted December 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM · Hidden by mauserme, December 29, 2018 at 02:09 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, December 29, 2018 at 02:09 PM - No reason given Time for a tick check. Link to comment
GTX63 Posted December 29, 2018 at 12:34 PM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 12:34 PM I'm sure some of the new ones cookin in the pot are similar to Limiting the number of citizens allowed to exit the state every year. Taxing sales tax. They aren't increasing the tax, just proposing to add a value fee. If you are paying sales tax, it just goes to reason that you must have money, and it only seems like common sense that you should pay your fair share. Alternative road repair methods. If the existing road fund is depleted before the end of the budget year, a grant would exist to purchase thick area rugs to throw over the remaining potholes. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. A new law allowing up to 5 firearms to be purchased by one household/address per year. Of course for every gun you buy, one of equal value must be surrendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted December 29, 2018 at 01:26 PM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 01:26 PM A new law allowing up to 5 firearms to be purchased by one household/address per year. Of course for every gun you buy, one of equal value must be surrendered. IIRC the present dealer bill that may or may not die at the end of session has a provision for over nine transfers and you as an individual must obtain a Illinois dealer license. Don't know what a newly written bill would say but I am sure it won't be any better. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted December 29, 2018 at 07:46 PM Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 07:46 PM I didn't know when had such a problem with ivory sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted December 29, 2018 at 10:39 PM Author Share Posted December 29, 2018 at 10:39 PM I didn't know when had such a problem with ivory sales.I did not research, but thought there was already a near total ivory ban at the federal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted December 30, 2018 at 07:23 PM Share Posted December 30, 2018 at 07:23 PM I didn't know when had such a problem with ivory sales.I did not research, but thought there was already a near total ivory ban at the federal level. The Federal ban, bans sales across state lines, not within the state... I glanced at the law, and it appears to ban the sale of grandfathered ivory in the State unless it's part of a grandfathered firearm, knife, musical instrument or for educational uses... You can still 'inherit' it and pass it down, just not sell it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted December 30, 2018 at 09:34 PM Share Posted December 30, 2018 at 09:34 PM Will I still be able to sell my piano? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted December 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Share Posted December 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Will I still be able to sell my piano? Yep, it's a musical instrument. But, under the black and white poorly written text they literally just banned the sale of all mammalian teeth (ivory=dentin so all mammalian teeth are composed of 'ivory'), so things like taxidermy mounts and even animal skulls are now technically illegal to sell if they have the teeth. The poor tooth fairy just became a repeat criminal! "Ivory" means any tooth or tusk composed of ivory from any animal, including, but not limited to, an elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth, narwhal, walrus, or whale, or any piece thereof, whether raw ivory or worked ivory, or made into, or part of, an ivory product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted January 2, 2019 at 05:10 AM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 05:10 AM I'm sure some of the new ones cookin in the pot are similar to Limiting the number of citizens allowed to exit the state every year. Taxing sales tax. They aren't increasing the tax, just proposing to add a value fee. If you are paying sales tax, it just goes to reason that you must have money, and it only seems like common sense that you should pay your fair share. Alternative road repair methods. If the existing road fund is depleted before the end of the budget year, a grant would exist to purchase thick area rugs to throw over the remaining potholes. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. A new law allowing up to 5 firearms to be purchased by one household/address per year. Of course for every gun you buy, one of equal value must be surrendered.This ^^^^Sarcasm on -Welcome to the peoples republic of Illinois, the rooskies have taken hold... Just listen to our new proposed state anthem - And you must mean 5 Firearms "per" household must be turned in each year... Cant have an armed citizenry can we? Sarcasm off - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy13 Posted January 2, 2019 at 05:24 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 05:24 PM Representative Peter J. Roskam ( R) 6th District in Illinois, cosponsored the BILL HB02345 'Firearms Restraining Order Act' in which a family member or spouse or law enforcement can petition to take guns from a residence just because someone "said" that a person was a danger. Representative Peter J. Roskam was the ONLY Republican to cosponsor this bill...the rest were Democrats. Representative Peter J. Roskam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted January 2, 2019 at 06:49 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 06:49 PM Representative Peter J. Roskam ( R) 6th District in Illinois, cosponsored the BILL HB02345 'Firearms Restraining Order Act' in which a family member or spouse or law enforcement can petition to take guns from a residence just because someone "said" that a person was a danger. Representative Peter J. Roskam was the ONLY Republican to cosponsor this bill...the rest were Democrats. Representative Peter J. Roskam This is an amazing first post.Not that there's anything wrong with having a first post, but I think this one has accuracy issues. Freddy, please check your facts and feel free to return with an update.Do you have a link to this bill? ...and welcome to IllinoisCarry.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottFM Posted January 2, 2019 at 07:27 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 07:27 PM Representative Peter J. Roskam ( R) 6th District in Illinois, cosponsored the BILL HB02345 'Firearms Restraining Order Act' in which a family member or spouse or law enforcement can petition to take guns from a residence just because someone "said" that a person was a danger. Representative Peter J. Roskam was the ONLY Republican to cosponsor this bill...the rest were Democrats. Representative Peter J. RoskamNot possible by any stretch of the imagination. I am not a fan of Roskam and worked very hard to see him shown the door at midnight today! But there is no way he could have co-sponsored this bill. He is, albeit for only a few more hours, a member of the US House of Representatives. This bill was in the Illinois State Legislature were Rep. Roskam has no official position beyond citizen of the state of Illinois. I think you might be thinking of HR38 in the 115th Congress which was the bill to allow CCW reciprocity. Roskam voted NO on that bill, one of 14 Republicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 2, 2019 at 07:54 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 07:54 PM Representative Peter J. Roskam ( R) 6th District in Illinois, cosponsored the BILL HB02345 'Firearms Restraining Order Act' in which a family member or spouse or law enforcement can petition to take guns from a residence just because someone "said" that a person was a danger. Representative Peter J. Roskam was the ONLY Republican to cosponsor this bill...the rest were Democrats. Representative Peter J. RoskamNot possible by any stretch of the imagination. I am not a fan of Roskam and worked very hard to see him shown the door at midnight today! But there is no way he could have co-sponsored this bill. He is, albeit for only a few more hours, a member of the US House of Representatives. This bill was in the Illinois State Legislature were Rep. Roskam has no official position beyond citizen of the state of Illinois. I think you might be thinking of HR38 in the 115th Congress which was the bill to allow CCW reciprocity. Roskam voted NO on that bill, one of 14 Republicans But hey, Welcome to the Forum anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothoro Posted January 2, 2019 at 08:30 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 08:30 PM 'Firearms Restraining Order act'This kind of seems like a double edged sword. On one side, it removes a firearm from someone who is legitimately a potential danger to themselves or others. On the other side it allows someone to remove firearms from a law abiding citizen even if they diddnt do anything wrong. So a vengeful person may use this in an un-lawful manner as well. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted January 2, 2019 at 08:45 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 08:45 PM '[/size]Firearms Restraining Order act'This kind of seems like a double edged sword. On one side, it removes a firearm from someone who is legitimately a potential danger to themselves or others. On the other side it allows someone to remove firearms from a law abiding citizen even if they diddnt do anything wrong. So a vengeful person may use this in an un-lawful manner as well. Am I right?It has the potential for abuse. Welcome to IC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 2, 2019 at 09:02 PM Share Posted January 2, 2019 at 09:02 PM 'Firearms Restraining Order act' ... So a vengeful person may use this in an un-lawful manner as well. Am I right? The ease with which abuse can occur varies from state to state. There are 13 states with extreme risk order of protection laws: CA, CT, DE, FL, IL, IN, MD, MA, NJ. OR, RI, VT, WA. 3 states require probable cause to issue an order: CT, IL, IN. Although RI currently has the weakest protection for the accused and no penalty for false reports, a state bill likely to be passed addresses those problems, making it soon to be 4 states requiring probable cause. The remaining 9 states have weaker burden of proof requirements, including 2 that allow ex parte orders (CA and DE) and 1 that allows a wide variety of petitioners (MD), including any doctor or mental health worker. CA and DE would be the only ones I'd say come close to a presumption of guilt. 4 states have no penalty for false petitions: CT, IN, MD, NJ (and currently RI). 3 states consider false petitions to be felonies: DE, FL, IL (and soon to be RI). The remaining 5 states consider false petitions to be misdemeanors. 5 states enter the protection orders into NICS: FL, MA, OR, RI, WA. Recall the case a few weeks ago of a guy who was killed by police who served him an apparently baseless order petitioned by his wife as part of some domestic argument. It took place in MD, one of the 2 states with a weak burden of proof requirement (IMO second weakest only to RI, so soon to be weakest when RI passes their updated law) and no penalty for false petitions. (The other one is NJ.) Notice also BTW that IL has the strongest proof requirement for an order and the strongest penalty for filing a false petition (thanks in no small part to Molly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.