GRJY Posted May 18, 2017 at 10:37 PM Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 10:37 PM I'm moving out of this state if SB556 becomes law. So if you already own an assault rifle you have to give it up? It still has to pass the House and get the governor's signature, so there are two places to stop this madness, which I'm holding out hope that it gets stopped in the House. I do have a plan 'B' if this awful bill some how becomes law. I have already made arrangements for my firearms and magazines to be stored out of state until such time I can move or the law is overturned in court.Did this pass in the senate or something? Why hope to stop it in the house and not just stop it before it starts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted May 18, 2017 at 10:59 PM Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 10:59 PM ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted May 18, 2017 at 11:09 PM Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 11:09 PM I'm moving out of this state if SB556 becomes law. So if you already own an assault rifle you have to give it up? It still has to pass the House and get the governor's signature, so there are two places to stop this madness, which I'm holding out hope that it gets stopped in the House. I do have a plan 'B' if this awful bill some how becomes law. I have already made arrangements for my firearms and magazines to be stored out of state until such time I can move or the law is overturned in court.Did this pass in the senate or something? Why hope to stop it in the house and not just stop it before it starts?Correct, it still needs to get through the Senate. Stop it early in committee but so many of those are stackedvwith anti-Dems 3/28/2017 Senate Second Reading 3/28/2017 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading March 29, 2017 4/28/2017 Senate Rule 2-10 Third Reading Deadline Established As May 31, 2017 5/11/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Antonio Muñoz 5/11/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Assignments 5/12/2017 Senate Chief Sponsor Changed to Sen. Antonio Muñoz 5/15/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Assignments Refers to Judiciary 5/16/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Postponed - Judiciary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRJY Posted May 18, 2017 at 11:24 PM Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 11:24 PM I'm moving out of this state if SB556 becomes law. So if you already own an assault rifle you have to give it up? It still has to pass the House and get the governor's signature, so there are two places to stop this madness, which I'm holding out hope that it gets stopped in the House. I do have a plan 'B' if this awful bill some how becomes law. I have already made arrangements for my firearms and magazines to be stored out of state until such time I can move or the law is overturned in court. Did this pass in the senate or something? Why hope to stop it in the house and not just stop it before it starts? Correct, it still needs to get through the Senate. Stop it early in committee but so many of those are stackedvwith anti-Dems 3/28/2017 Senate Second Reading 3/28/2017 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading March 29, 2017 4/28/2017 Senate Rule 2-10 Third Reading Deadline Established As May 31, 2017 5/11/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Antonio Muñoz 5/11/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Assignments 5/12/2017 Senate Chief Sponsor Changed to Sen. Antonio Muñoz 5/15/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Assignments Refers to Judiciary 5/16/2017 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Postponed - Judiciary I have no doubt about these type of bills being passed out of committee. They always pass out of committee. I have been playing this game for a while before I even knew this website existed. We have been successful at crushing these god awful bills before they get too far and I intend to keep doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byxlaw Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:41 AM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:41 AM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRJY Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:47 AM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:47 AM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkIt stands for "F you, because we can." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:53 AM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:53 AM 60 days after receiving it. Sometimes it takes a few days to get it over to him.Is there a page at illinois.gov that tracks bills waiting for the governor to sign and/or the bills that he has signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:57 AM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 12:57 AM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkIt stands for "F you, because we can." http://33.media.tumblr.com/8642075103c54ee6eae9bb3808377121/tumblr_noenylQkFh1s8njeuo1_500.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted May 19, 2017 at 01:42 AM Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 01:42 AM 60 days after receiving it. Sometimes it takes a few days to get it over to him. Is there a page at illinois.gov that tracks bills waiting for the governor to sign and/or the bills that he has signed? For bills waiting to be signed or vetoed you'd probably have to do House Bills Passed Both Houses + Senate Bills Passed Both Houses + Bills Pending Governor Action. Bills signed into law are Public Acts (none so far). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:07 PM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:07 PM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkI'm guessing the FOID requirement was to force a background check. Tasers have also piggybacked on the FOID card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeterlancer Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:30 PM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:30 PM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkI'm guessing the FOID requirement was to force a background check. Tasers have also piggybacked on the FOID card. I still don't understand the purpose of the FOID. You still have to pass a background check when purchasing a firearm, so what's the purpose in having a FOID? My guess is the state just wants $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:59 PM Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 03:59 PM Regarding switchblades: what does F in FOID have to do with non-F arms? Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkI'm guessing the FOID requirement was to force a background check. Tasers have also piggybacked on the FOID card. I still don't understand the purpose of the FOID. You still have to pass a background check when purchasing a firearm, so what's the purpose in having a FOID? My guess is the state just wants $10. Good point. But, beyond the background check, the FOID card also is required for legal firearm/ammo possession. For instance, transporting firearms/ammo to a range. Even to the point of firearm/ammo possession in your home (if you are the only FOID carrier in your family and you leave the home, your family may then be technically in unlawful possession of your firearms/ammo in your home.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted May 19, 2017 at 04:08 PM Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 at 04:08 PM You have to look back to 1968 for the FOID requirement to make any sense. It was intended as an all encompassing check for people that might be buying firearms privately before computerization and before the dial up universal background check we have now. In a modern day world it serves no real purpose but is so entrenched in the minds of our legislators that they continue to pile new law on top of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeterlancer Posted May 20, 2017 at 12:37 AM Share Posted May 20, 2017 at 12:37 AM You have to look back to 1968 for the FOID requirement to make any sense. It was intended as an all encompassing check for people that might be buying firearms privately before computerization and before the dial up universal background check we have now. In a modern day world it serves no real purpose but is so entrenched in the minds of our legislators that they continue to pile new law on top of it. 1968... Hmm, that's conveniently the same year MLK was killed. I wonder if the Chicago riots had anything to do with the FOID law... We really need to exposing all of the gun control laws as a way of secretly preventing "certain people" from owning firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.