mstrat Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:28 PM Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:28 PM HB0264 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOVAmends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Denies home rule powers relating to permits and licenses for firearms. Effective immediately. HB0265 - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORTAmends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, may not regulate the transportation of firearms and may not regulate the transportation of ammunition, components, accessories, or accoutrements for firearms. Provides that the provisions of any ordinance or resolution adopted by any unit of local government that imposes restrictions or limitations on the transportation of firearms and ammunition, components, accessories, and accoutrements of firearms in a manner other than those that are imposed by this amendatory Act are invalid and all those existing ordinances and resolutions are void. Provides that this provision is a limitation of home rule powers under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. Effective immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:44 PM Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:44 PM any one have any info on these 2 reps? Rep. Daniel V. Beiser 111th DistrictRep. Dan Reitz 116th District they have been added as sponsors on the HB0148 conceal carry bill... that puts 3 Dems on that bill... which could be good. i cant get there voting record to show up... i see they sponsored a CC bill last year also... You can look them up on ILGA to see their district affiliation. They have always been 2A friendly in the past and have sponsored several carry bills. Not sure where you're trying to see a voting record. Perhaps nothing shows because there have been no votes taken in the 97th Gen Assem yet?? AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 26, 2011 at 02:46 PM Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 02:46 PM Good work, Mstrat--got 'em listed. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted January 27, 2011 at 01:30 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 01:30 AM If you read the armored car one carefully, it would neuter "Joe's Armored Car Emporium", but foster "Big Bank Inc, Armored Car Division". ie. Go Wells Fargo, Go Away Illinois Armored, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flag Posted January 27, 2011 at 01:35 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 01:35 AM Makes you wonder what the motivation is for the Representative in pushing the Armored Car bill... A grudge against armored cars not affiliated with a bank?A (gasp) payoff campaign contribution from a big bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:10 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:10 AM the following was sent to me by staff as background from the DFPR over the bill and it's genesis. "Subject: RE: Armored Car Guard proposal Last year I received a telephone call from the Peoria Police Department(I believe it was a lieutenant). He related that the night before hisofficers had spotted an armored car parked near an open area ofdowntown. The doors were open and two individuals were seen near thearmored car. Neither had on uniforms but at least one was observed witha firearm. It was suspected that this could be a hijacked armored car ora robbery in progress. After back-up arrived, the officers approachedand disarmed the individuals. The individuals informed the officers thatthey were employees of the armored car company, that the vehicle hadbroken down, and that they were sent by their employer to guard thetruck until it could be towed. The officers asked the individuals foridentification as well as their state-issued Firearm Control Cards. (AFirearm Control Card is issued by the Department of Financial andProfessional Regulation to authorize the carrying of a firearm byprivate detectives, private alarm contractors, and security guards underthe Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, FingerprintVendor, and Locksmith Act.) The individuals said that they did not have Firearm Control Cards anddidn't need them. This is what prompted the call to me. The PeoriaPolice Department wanted to know if these armed guards of the armoredcar company were required to have Firearm Control Cards to authorizethem to carry firearms. I said yes. I later received a telephone callback from this same lieutenant. He related that he had spoken with arepresentative of the armored car company and he was claiming that armedguards of armored car companies were exempt from the law on carryingfirearms and did not require a Firearm Control Card. I gave thelieutenant the cite to the section in the Criminal Code (Section24-2(a)(8)that required Firearm Control Cards for armed guards ofarmored car companies. I don't remember if I gave this to him in thefirst or second call. The Department does not license or regulatearmored car companies. However, this section gives the Department theresponsibility to perform background checks on armed guards for armoredcar companies, requires that the armed guards complete the sameclassroom and firearm training as do armed security guards for privatesecurity companies, and provides for the issuance of Firearm ControlCards to the armed guards by the Department.) I looked at the rest of Section 24-2 and saw that there was language inparagraphs 4 and 9 that appeared to exempt armed guards of armored carcompanies, in contrast to the provisions in paragraph 8. I spoke withour Department supervisor who handles the Firearm Control Cards and wereviewed his list of companies that had registered with the Departmentand had applied for Firearm Control Cards for their armed guards. Thelist contained the names of a number of armored car companies but Icould see that a number of companies, of which I was familiar, were notincluded. The purpose of our legislative proposal is to remove the conflict. Wepresume that the legislature wants the Department to handle theresponsibility of performing background checks on armed guards ofarmored car companies and issue Firearm Control Cards to signify theirapproval and authority to carry firearms. Our proposal removes theconflicting language in paragraphs 4 and 9. However, if the legislaturedetermines that it does not want the Department to carry out this task,it should delete portions of paragraph 8. The Department needsdirection. Either the Department is responsible for the performingbackground checks and issuing Firearm Control Cards or it is not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:35 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:35 AM Thanks, Todd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:47 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:47 AM guys there has been a fair amount of talk about this. But here is where I pick my targets. I don't work for amored car comapanies. I'm sure Wells Fargo, or Brinks can afford someone to represent their interests. I don't see it as our fight. I'll have to cross referance the sections they mention, but it doesn't ban guns, doesn't affect civilians, or our membership. So I don't think it's our fight. We got bigger issues and I just heard today that Daley is going to make another round at a semi-auto ban this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 27, 2011 at 03:03 AM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 03:03 AM Thank you for the information. Assuming that letter is accurate and earnest, it certainly does not sound like they are trying to disarm armored car guards (as it appears they can still get Firearm Control Cards). That was very informative and helpful, so thanks for sharing. 45superman: I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that HB0215 should be taken off the list, for the same reasons Todd pointed out in his follow-up after the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM 45superman: I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that HB0215 should be taken off the list, for the same reasons Todd pointed out in his follow-up after the letter. OK--I still don't like it, but I agree it's probably not worth fighting. Moved to neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:23 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 02:23 PM If you read the armored car one carefully, it would neuter "Joe's Armored Car Emporium", but foster "Big Bank Inc, Armored Car Division". ie. Go Wells Fargo, Go Away Illinois Armored, or something like that. I'm not a lawyer, a legislator, or an employee of the LRB that writes the "official" version of the bill. But, in reading the current version of the statute it does indeed seem that paragraphs 4 and 9 exempt employees of an armored car company from the UUW statute and does NOT require a Firearm Control Card. Paragraph 8 explicitly requires a FCC for an employee of a "financial institution" then goes on to define "financial institution" as: For purposes of this subsection, "financial institution" means a bank, savings and loan association, credit union or company providing armored car services. So, which is it? Another case of our laws being so ambiguous that even a Philadelphia lawyer can't figure them out. Much less a Chicago one! Looks like an effort to clarify some existing statutes, bears monitoring, but not to support or oppose. It'll be interesting though if the 4 and 9 paragraphs are allowed to stand. That appears to allow armored car personell to carry with NO training. Horrors!! /sarcasm off. Link to statute, scroll down to appropriate section 24-2 (a) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted January 27, 2011 at 05:39 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 05:39 PM The armored car bill is not worth any more bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 27, 2011 at 05:58 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 05:58 PM The armored car bill is not worth any more bandwidth. Probably not. But I've always wondered - Can ordinary citizens own an armored truck? You never see any old ones. What happens to them? Are they legal to own? They might be the thing to have - for like driving through Rockford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashrak Posted January 27, 2011 at 07:02 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 07:02 PM Were Constitutional Carry respected,it seems to me that the armored car SNAFU would be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:14 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:14 PM I know 45superman is working on updating the opening post on this thread with the new wave of senate bills, so i won't paste them all here. But I found this one to be particularly awesome:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=34&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=54472&SessionID=84&GA=97 If I'm understanding it right, it's basically a "take the guns away from the hypocrite aldermen" bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:46 PM Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:46 PM I know 45superman is working on updating the opening post on this thread with the new wave of senate bills, so i won't paste them all here. But I found this one to be particularly awesome:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=34&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=54472&SessionID=84&GA=97 If I'm understanding it right, it's basically a "take the guns away from the hypocrite aldermen" bill Yeah--I'm rather partial to that one, myself . I think I'm caught up on the Senate bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:48 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:48 PM maybe we could use this as leverage, give us what we want and we give you armored cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:49 PM Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:49 PM I listed SB 75 as "good": Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately. If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did. Any thoughts? William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:50 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:50 PM maybe we could use this as leverage, give us what we want and we give you armored cars I have a strong suspicion that it provides very little leverage. I get the impression it's one person's pet bill. The kind of leverage we need for RTC is much much BIGGER. like tax increases. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:53 PM Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:53 PM I have a strong suspicion that it provides very little leverage. I get the impression it's one person's pet bill. The kind of leverage we need for RTC is much much BIGGER. like tax increases. :/ I don't remember Senator McCarter introducing gun bills in the past, but he has jumped in with both feet this session, with a number of good bills. It'll be nice to have a new ally in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:55 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:55 PM I listed SB 75 as "good": Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately. If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did. Any thoughts? William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this. Again, I think it's a "clarification" bill. As the FOID act reads now, a person must have a FOID to posess a gun in IL. To have a FOID, you must be a resident. Logically, then, non-residents don't need a FOID because they can't qualify, but they can own a gun under Federal law. Some argue that non-residents can't have a firearm in their posession in IL BECAUSE they can't get a FOID. Much like IN saying you can't take a handgun to a range in their state because they require an IN LTCH or a license from another state, municipality or country to move a handgun from your house except for a couple of exceptions. I'm guessing Haine is trying to put into writing what has been practice to prevent overzealous LEO's from arresting non-residents. Just my guess. We'll see how close it was! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:57 PM Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 08:57 PM Again, I think it's a "clarification" bill. As the FOID act reads now, a person must have a FOID to posess a gun in IL. To have a FOID, you must be a resident. Logically, then, non-residents don't need a FOID because they can't qualify, but they can own a gun under Federal law. Some argue that non-residents can't have a firearm in their posession in IL BECAUSE they can't get a FOID. Much like IN saying you can't take a handgun to a range in their state because they require an IN LTCH or a license from another state, municipality or country to move a handgun from your house except for a couple of exceptions. I'm guessing Haine is trying to put into writing what has been practice to prevent overzealous LEO's from arresting non-residents. Just my guess. We'll see how close it was! ABThat makes sense. I think I'll still ask Senator Haine about it. Don't worry--I'll be polite (I can do that, you know, if I really force myself ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 27, 2011 at 09:35 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 09:35 PM I listed SB 75 as "good": Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately. If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did. Any thoughts? William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this. I think abolt is right on, that it just clarifies and doesn't change anything for anything. These changes seem to be two-fold:* Instead of non-residents being exempt from needing a FOID for being "currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state," they are exempt simply by not being prohibited persons.* There are also a lot of unnecessary (and potentially confusing/misleading) stuff in there. All those enumerated situations for not needing a FOID (while hunting, or at a range, etc), are entirely pointless if the person can legally own a firearm via the "currently licensed or registered" provision Full changes for reference: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=75&GAID=11&LegID=54666&SpecSess=&Session= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted January 27, 2011 at 09:38 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 09:38 PM the senate bills are ours. more later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:36 PM Share Posted January 27, 2011 at 10:36 PM i hate it when Todd does that... yea its ours... now wait in anguish about it till later... this is a baddy SB0066Amends the Probate Act of 1975. Provides that before the distribution of a firearm to the distributee of an estate, other than a small estate or an estate independently administered, the representative must transmit to the court a written statement that the distributee is lawfully eligible to own and possess a firearm under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Criminal Code of 1961, and the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and that the distributee possesses a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police. Provides that if the court is satisfied with the validity of the written statement, the court shall order the distribution of the firearm to the distributee. Provides that if the court is not satisfied with the validity of the written statement, the court shall order that the firearm be placed in the custody of the court until the distributee meets the requirements of this provision within a time period set by the court. Provides that if the distributee fails to meet the requirements within the time period set by the court, the court shall order the firearm to be disposed of in a manner prescribed by the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snm Posted January 29, 2011 at 08:43 PM Share Posted January 29, 2011 at 08:43 PM I'll be adding bills as they are noted, so keep an eye on this. Good House billsHB 0003 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (preemption, basically, with regard to ownership, and transfer, but not carry, as I understand) HB 0004 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV (another preemption bill, focusing on training) HB 0005 - WILDLIFE CODE-CASE DEFINITION (a "case" is a case, is a case--any container that can hold a gun completely covered can be considered to be a "gun case," even by the Wildlife Code) HB 0006 - WILDLIFE CODE-MUSKRAT HUNTING (loosens restrictions on muskrat hunting--poor Muskrat Suzie and Muskrat Sam) HB 0007 - FIREARMS-FOID HOLDER PRIVACY (provides protection for confidentiality of FOID card info) HB 0008 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-PREEMPTION (pretty comprehensive firearms law preemption bill) HB 0098 - CORRECTIONAL OFFICER-FIREARMS (carry permit system for current and retired corrections officers) HB 0112 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (defensive firearm carry, administered by sheriff's department) HB 0142 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (another good preemption bill) HB 0143 - CRIM CD-MILITARY REENACTOR (provides very limited exemptions for using short barreled rifles for reenactments) HB 0148 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (another sheriff's department administered defensive handgun carry bill) HB 0264 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV (preemption, as applied to licensing/permitting) HB 0265 - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT (preemption, as applied to transportation of firearms) Bad House billsHB 0203 - CRIM CD-ONE GUN PER MONTH (2nd Amendment rationing, for handguns) Questionable/neutral/shell bills in HouseHB 0066 - CRIMINAL LAW-TECH (Lou Lang shell bill dealing with explosive and incendiary devices) HB 0215 - CRIM CD-WEAPONS-ARMORED CAR (armored car robber protection bill [What the hey!!!?], disarms armored car guards) Good Senate billsSB 0027 - FIREARMS-FOID HOLDER PRIVACY (Protects confidentiality of FOID info; Senate version of HB 0007) SB 0033 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (Good, comprehensive firearms preemption bill) SB 0048 - GUN-FREE ZONE LIABILITY (any government or private entity that establishes a "gun-free zone" is liable for treble damages to anyone who is harmed by criminal activity from which they could have defended themselves with a firearm) SB 0034 - MUN&CRIM CD-ALDERMEN-FIREARMS (Aldermen have no more right to self-defense than the rest of us) SB 0049 - FIREARM OWNERS-RECORDS (When you transfer a gun, you must keep record for 5 years, rather than 10, as currently required) SB 0075 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-NONRESIDENT (Waives FOID requirement for nonresidents) SB 0076 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-AMMUNITION (If I'm reading this right, it allows mail-order ammo purchases from within the state [i hadn't realized that wasn't already permissible]) SB 0077 - CRIM CD-MILITARY REENACTOR (Limited exemption for short-barreled rifles for historical reenactments) SB 0080 - FIREARM OWNERS-18 (Lowers the age at which one can apply for a FOID without parental consent, from 21 to 18) SB 0081 - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT (Preemption as applied to firearm transportation) SB 0082 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (Concealed carry, administered by Sheriff's Department) Bad Senate bills Questionable/neutral/shell bills in Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:00 PM Share Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:00 PM ok Hachet, what do you want to know? All but 1 of the senate bills I see are ones we handed out. there are more to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:19 PM Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:19 PM this is a baddy SB0066Amends the Probate Act of 1975. Provides that before the distribution of a firearm to the distributee . . . How the $* did I miss that one?! Thanks, Hatchet, and sorry, everyone, that I dropped the ball on that. I'll go through the Senate bills again, to make sure I didn't miss any others I'm responsible for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:29 PM Share Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:29 PM ok Hachet, what do you want to know? All but 1 of the senate bills I see are ones we handed out. there are more to come. i forget.. nm How the $* did I miss that one?! Thanks, Hatchet, and sorry, everyone, that I dropped the ball on that. I'll go through the Senate bills again, to make sure I didn't miss any others I'm responsible for. were all human... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paknon2wheels Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:50 PM Share Posted January 29, 2011 at 09:50 PM Thanks for all the hard work that goes into keeping this thread up to date. It makes it really handy to have everything located in one place, so we can see each bills progress (or hopefully the lack there of if it's one we oppose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.