mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:50 AM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:50 AM The legislature returns from Spring break today and both House and Senate are scheduled for 12:00 Noon. Since we last met on 3/30/2012, two bills have seen some change: HB5649 - Stun Gun Tasers Carry has a new sponsor in Mike Bost after Roger Eddy resigned his office. HB5745 - Concealed Carry Firearms added co-sponsor Thomas Morrison and a balanced budget note was filed projecting that $21,125,000 first year revenue would offset the intial $2 Million start up costs. While many of the bills we have been monitoring are back in Rules: SB2780 - Criminal Law Tech has had its deadline extended to 4/26/2012 and bills that previously passed in their original body have found committee assignments: SB0681 FOID Ammunition Shipment {Intra-State Shipping), having passed the Senate 3/28/2012, is assigned to the House Agriculture Committee HB4063 - FOID Firearms (BB Guns) , having passed the House 3/27/2012, is assigned to the Senate Criminal Law Committee (scheduled for 4/18/2012) HB4901 - Criminal Law Tech (Military Reenactor) , having passed the House 3/21/2012, is assigned to the Senate Public Health Committee. HB5682 - Criminal Cd Security Training . having passed the House 3/8/2012, is assigned to the Sentae Public Health Committee. I see nothing pertaining to us on the House Calendar today. Next Days Scheduled House: 4/18/2012Senate:: 4/18/2012 House Calendar 4-17-12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:51 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:51 AM I've attached the Senate calendar but will have to finish its review a bit late. I don't expect that there will be anything related to us today. Edited to add some shell bills that I'm calling neutral for now but probably bear watching (SB2780 had already been on our list). Senate Calendar 12:00 Noon SB2780 - Criminal Law Tech (Employment) Neutral Senate Sponsor: Cullerton Status: Third Reading ( Senate Amendment No 1 pending) Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the definition of "severely or profoundly mentally retarded person". SB2792 - Criminal Law Tech (Defense of a Dwelling) Neutral Senate Sponsor: Cullerton Status: Third Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning justification in the use of force against another person in defense of a dwelling. SB3085 - Criminal Law Tech (Defense of a Person) Neutral Senate Sponsor: Radogno Status: Third Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the use of force in defense of a person Senate Calendar 4-17-12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM I haven't followed much through the senate, how does it work. I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie???? Did you mean pass over to the senate? I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change to Eddy last yr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieut89 Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM I haven't followed much through the senate, how does it work. I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie???? Did you mean pass over to the senate? I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change to Eddy last yr. I think that's a typo Harley. It actually passed the House and has moved to the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM I haven't followed much through the senate, how does it work. I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie???? Did you mean pass over to the senate? I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change to Eddy last yr. I think that's a typo Harley. It actually passed the House and has moved to the Senate. it's in the comittie, just didn't know how the process works. I would assume it's similar to the house correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieut89 Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM Yep, there was a typo that I corrected. The bill passed the House (not the Senate) and has been sent to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Criminal Law Committee. If approved for full consideration there, it will be added to the Senate calendar for potential floor debate and, if passed without amendments, will then be sent to the governor for signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM Yep, there was a typo that I corrected. The bill passed the House (not the Senate) and has been sent to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Criminal Law Committee. If approved for full consideration there, it will be added to the Senate calendar for potential floor debate and, if passed without amendments, will then be sent to the governor for signature. awsome!, thanks for the detailed reply. How do we help ensure it gets out of committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willxjcherokee Posted April 17, 2012 at 01:19 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 01:19 PM Yay for another co-sponsor for rtc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:01 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:01 PM Lol at 20 million offsets 2 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdoom Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:08 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:08 PM Why are we wasting time and resources on conceal carry for tasers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:33 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:33 PM Guys and gals Yesterdays task force hearing went well. Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking. I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns? Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners Over all it was a good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:42 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:42 PM Guys and gals Yesterdays task force hearing went well. Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking. I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns? Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners Over all it was a good day The Chicago PD testified against, but we still have the support of the Chicago Sergeants and Lieutenants Assocs right?? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:58 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 02:58 PM Guys and gals Yesterdays task force hearing went well. Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking. I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns? Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners Over all it was a good day It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are. Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:01 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:01 PM The Chicago PD testified against, but we still have the support of the Chicago Sergeants and Lieutenants Assocs right?? Tim Yes they do. A gentleman who represents both those groups testified very effectively about their support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:03 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:03 PM Guys and gals Yesterdays task force hearing went well. Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking. I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns? Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners Over all it was a good day Is it too early to say when we can be looking at a floor vote on 148 or 5745? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:28 PM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:28 PM Todd previously posted that there would be a vote on Right to Carry after Spring break. I'm sure he'll elaborate when the time is right. I've edited the Senate post above to include a few shell bills that are on the calendar at third reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will S. Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:45 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:45 PM I have a question about the CPD. I would imagine the individuals showing up to say they are against this are the big wigs in the police force (Rahm's yes men). Are these people part of the union? If not, would it be possible for the union to say whether the Police on the ground are for or against this? I was just wondering if we could get the voice of the majority of the CPD out there and if they would be on our side. But I don't know if the foot soldiers could go against the big wigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:50 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:50 PM HB5745 - Concealed Carry Firearms added co-sponsor Thomas Morrison and a balanced budget note was filed projecting that $21,125,000 first year revenue would offset the intial $2 Million start up costs This surplus can and will be used to fund more officers correct? If so, this is the infomation we need to be hitting the Chicago streets with. What neighborhood will say you know what, I think we have enough police coverage. But when you put it in a way that the state is broke and cant afford more police, and we are already taxed to the limits, and law abiding gun owners want to not only possible give up their life to be able to protect you, they are willing to give up money to hire more police to do the same thing. Win Win. IMO Here is the questionair. Would you be willing to support lawfull gun owners who have met certain training criteria, been fingerprinted, and went through extensive FBI background checks, as well as checks from the local sherrif and state police to carry loaded weapons in order to protect themselves, if it would raise 20 million + dollars to help put more officers on the streets to better help those who either chose not to carry, or do not meet the legal requirements to do so ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:51 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 03:51 PM It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are. Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have. Am I misreading this? You're suggesting "we" are being misrepresented. Does that mean "we" as gun owners - or "we" here as forum members? And just HOW are we being misrepresented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlatoani Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:09 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:09 PM He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov. Guessing. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:15 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:15 PM He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov. Guessing. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2Or just the liberal media in general. That is how I read it. Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here. We are all in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeckler Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:35 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:35 PM He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov. Guessing. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2Or just the liberal media in general. That is how I read it. Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here. We are all in this together. I read it to be how lawful gunowners are mis-repreneted. A very vocal minority attempt to speak on behalf of the majority. A very powerful minority (PD Brass) are setting policies that impact the majorty of police force. This is similar to how a minority number of people (Chicago Machine Politicians) are setting policies that impact 100% of the people in the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:39 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:39 PM The PBPA represents both the Sgts and Lts. their general counsel did a very good job of refuting the command hack's comments. The commander could not answer any questions about how many of the people they pick up with an "illegal" gun had a FOID card, CFP or Chicago registration certificate. Sean did a very good job of talking about the 85% of the PBPA members that support RTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firepiper Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:39 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 04:39 PM I have a question about the CPD. I would imagine the individuals showing up to say they are against this are the big wigs in the police force (Rahm's yes men). Are these people part of the union? If not, would it be possible for the union to say whether the Police on the ground are for or against this? I was just wondering if we could get the voice of the majority of the CPD out there and if they would be on our side. But I don't know if the foot soldiers could go against the big wigs. Will, Yes, it's the politically appointed administrators that go downstate and do Rahm's (or Daley's in the past) bidding This issue was addressed on multiple occasions by Chicago Police Blogger "Second City Cop" He posted a criticism of the FOP's non-reaction (as compared to the Chicago Police Sgt's & Lt's along with the Illinois Sheriff's Association) The average street copper seems to support RTC...... Check out some of the discussion here...there are several posts.... SCC Search on FOP and RTC I'll see if I can find the original reply posted by the Lodge president on their website.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:20 PM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:20 PM The Senate is convening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:27 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:27 PM It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are. Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have. Am I misreading this? You're suggesting "we" are being misrepresented. Does that mean "we" as gun owners - or "we" here as forum members? And just HOW are we being misrepresented? I excelled at art not english. I'll try to be a little more clear on my thoughts... The political leadership of Illinois who "represent" us (the people of Illinois) have manipulated the system to their advantage. i.e. Taxes, budgets, gun laws, crime rates, alderman maps, contracting, etc. -Springfield speaks and rules for a select few residing in Chicago, not for the majority who reside in Illinois. (I'm sure you're aware of that.) Very much like how the police superintendent speaks for the CPD as a whole. If you talk to the average officer on the street his views will starkly contrast what is spewing out of the super's mouth. Almost every Chicago LEO that I know supports RTC for law-abiding citizens. Todd says "The Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea" I believe the CPD have been mis-represented by whoever showed up and testified against the idea for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:29 PM Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:29 PM He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov. Guessing. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2Or just the liberal media in general. That is how I read it. Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here. We are all in this together. I read it to be how lawful gunowners are mis-repreneted. A very vocal minority attempt to speak on behalf of the majority. A very powerful minority (PD Brass) are setting policies that impact the majorty of police force. This is similar to how a minority number of people (Chicago Machine Politicians) are setting policies that impact 100% of the people in the state. Yes, what they said Buzz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:30 PM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:30 PM Thanks for clarifying, chicago. I think its all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM The Senate stands in recess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.