THE KING Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:53 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:53 PM Oh, I'm pretty sure sooner or later the ole Todd V will weigh in on this. Sick em Todd Yes, let's attack the guy trying to follow the law and do the right thing. Something's wrong here. I'm almost positive Todd called the same people your CLEO called and got a completely different answer. I dunno. A formal, written ruling from the BATFE will assuage my mind one way or another. But the Chief has no reason to lie to me. And I'm not inclined not to believe him given the Bureau's previous antics with firearms laws. My comment had nothing to do with you. If you already don't know, Todd V is our NRA Lobbyist and I was referring to him going after the BATFE, NOT YOU !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:55 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:55 PM The sick em Todd should have been in purple.... No it should not have been in purple Todd will straighten out the BATFE on the law, as I believe he helped write it. And the BATFE is wrong on their application and interpretation of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:14 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:14 PM On it. Been on it for a week since I was made aware. Attachments to follow. They need a clarification, but we will be fine Ted E Clutter Letter.pdf ATF.pdf Nice! Those letters make it very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:20 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:20 PM One of the complications seems to be that dealers can not have sbrs so they are scratching their head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:22 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:22 PM One of the complications seems to be that dealers can not have sbrs so they are scratching their head True IL fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:24 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:24 PM My comment had nothing to do with you. If you already don't know, Todd V is our NRA Lobbyist and I was referring to him going after the BATFE, NOT YOU !! I know who Todd is, but you weren't clear on who you wanted him to sic. LOL But thanks for the clarification. @Tvandermyde, thank you for posting the letters from the Bill's sponsors. I hope you'll post the formal clarification/ruling from the BATFE when you receive it. I'll post as well when I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH8IL Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:25 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:25 PM This reintroduces my idea of the RRA PDS pistol or the Kriss Vector pistol for home defense. I dare not call them SBR's but they would be the next best thing to a SBR.That would be pricey for if you have to use it, it will sit in an evidence locker. I do like the vector kriss but man, 1800 for a pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:33 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:33 PM I almost sympathize with the BATFE when they first reviewed Illinois law. I'm sure they were thinking, "There's no f'n way that Illinois actually intended to do this." But, regardless, the law is the law and the BATFE can't refuse to follow Illinois law simply because they don't think Illinois really meant it when they enacted the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipp Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:39 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:39 PM the folding stock to add on to the pistol is $110 - It is really fun to shoot, I have shot the carbine numerous times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:41 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:41 PM My comment had nothing to do with you. If you already don't know, Todd V is our NRA Lobbyist and I was referring to him going after the BATFE, NOT YOU !! I know who Todd is, but you weren't clear on who you wanted him to sic. LOL But thanks for the clarification. @Tvandermyde, thank you for posting the letters from the Bill's sponsors. I hope you'll post the formal clarification/ruling from the BATFE when you receive it. I'll post as well when I do. Your Welcome my friend Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:42 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:42 PM I almost sympathize with the BATFE when they first reviewed Illinois law. I'm sure they were thinking, "There's no f'n way that Illinois actually intended to do this." But, regardless, the law is the law and the BATFE can't refuse to follow Illinois law simply because they don't think Illinois really meant it when they enacted the law. Part of the process is legislative intent. How do you think the government feels since Florida just inadvertently outlawed all electronic devices that can connect to a network in the state. Think about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armored223 Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:46 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:46 PM One of the complications seems to be that dealers can not have sbrs so they are scratching their head Not unless the dealer gets his Class3 license as I know one here in Mclean county who already has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:58 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:58 PM I almost sympathize with the BATFE when they first reviewed Illinois law. I'm sure they were thinking, "There's no f'n way that Illinois actually intended to do this." But, regardless, the law is the law and the BATFE can't refuse to follow Illinois law simply because they don't think Illinois really meant it when they enacted the law. Part of the process is legislative intent. How do you think the government feels since Florida just inadvertently outlawed all electronic devices that can connect to a network in the state. Think about that one. If it's truly a screw-up, the legislature can pass an amended law fixing the problem. It's not the job of the courts to fix it. Here's what the Illinois Supreme Court had to say on the subject: "There is no rule of construction which authorizes a court to declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports."Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 179 Ill. 2d 141, 149 (1997). And later in that same case: "Where the language of the act is certain and unambiguous the only legitimate function of the courts is to enforce the law as enacted by the legislature." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:21 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:21 PM Not trying to take over this post but here is something since the subject involves short barrel stuff. My friend wants a serbu 12g. pump. they are Mossberg or Rem. shotguns with a barrel of about 10 inches, hold 3 shots. You can google or bing search serbu super shorty if you want to see a picture. I checked it out and " sawed off " or cut down shotguns are a total no no here in Illinois. HOWEVER..... If the thing was made from the beginning with a short barrel it's all good and legal cause in this state it is AOW ( any other weapon ) and you get the $5 tax stamp from ATF. Serbu buys new pump shotgun receivers w/ pistol grip and builds from there with a new made short barrel. they don't buy regular barrels and cut them or cut down full size shotguns so in the eyes of the law it was never a shotgun because it never had a long barrel to cut or a shoulder stock. again just wanted to throw that strange fact out, sorry to change the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:33 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:33 PM Not trying to take over this post but here is something since the subject involves short barrel stuff. My friend wants a serbu 12g. pump. they are Mossberg or Rem. shotguns with a barrel of about 10 inches, hold 3 shots. You can google or bing search serbu super shorty if you want to see a picture. I checked it out and " sawed off " or cut down shotguns are a total no no here in Illinois. HOWEVER..... If the thing was made from the beginning with a short barrel it's all good and legal cause in this state it is AOW ( any other weapon ) and you get the $5 tax stamp from ATF. Serbu buys new pump shotgun receivers w/ pistol grip and builds from there with a new made short barrel. they don't buy regular barrels and cut them or cut down full size shotguns so in the eyes of the law it was never a shotgun because it never had a long barrel to cut or a shoulder stock. again just wanted to throw that strange fact out, sorry to change the subject. You're mixing federal law with state law. Not gonna happen. Sbs is illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:41 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:41 PM Not trying to take over this post but here is something since the subject involves short barrel stuff. My friend wants a serbu 12g. pump. they are Mossberg or Rem. shotguns with a barrel of about 10 inches, hold 3 shots. You can google or bing search serbu super shorty if you want to see a picture. I checked it out and " sawed off " or cut down shotguns are a total no no here in Illinois. HOWEVER..... If the thing was made from the beginning with a short barrel it's all good and legal cause in this state it is AOW ( any other weapon ) and you get the $5 tax stamp from ATF. Serbu buys new pump shotgun receivers w/ pistol grip and builds from there with a new made short barrel. they don't buy regular barrels and cut them or cut down full size shotguns so in the eyes of the law it was never a shotgun because it never had a long barrel to cut or a shoulder stock. again just wanted to throw that strange fact out, sorry to change the subject. You're mixing federal law with state law. Not gonna happen. Sbs is illegalCorrect, but the Serbu is AOW. And THANKS for all you have done for us !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdoom Posted July 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM I thought the CLEO sign-off requirement was gone, as of this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM I thought the CLEO sign-off requirement was gone, as of this year? Not that I'm aware of. They've been talking about removing it for years now without ever taking action on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted July 13, 2013 at 01:21 AM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 01:21 AM How is it that the ATF regulates firearms but doesn't understand firearms law? I posted this on another forum but it applies here. The biggest problems I have with the agency (that show how out of control they are): While IL Statute allows "the Fire Chief or his designee" to investigate fires, I cannot bill myself as an "Investigator" unless I have completed a certain number of state-specified courses successfully, and if I go to court my credentials can become a matter of consideration. However, at the ATF, a "firearms expert" is a title, not a description of job expertise, training, knowledge or experience, yet the Federal Courts accept the title from someone with no training whatsoever the same as someone with expert knowledge of firearms design, construction and/or operation. As a LE investigator the procedure and methodology I use conducting my investigations is subject to the Daubert and/or Frye standards, just as the work of every other "professional" is, as well as the generic concept of the "Scientific method", that is, another individual given the same knowledge, experience, tools, evidence and data should be able to reach similar results. Except the ATF. They don't need to prove their methodology, state the methods by which they obtained their results, or show consistency from Case #1 to Case #87. They can say "this is a device that allows the firing of more than one round at a time from a firearm, therefore is meets the definition of a machine gun" and point to a shoelace and be correct within the construct of their own sterile existence. They can also modify the conditions of examination until a desired result is achieved, whether or not the defendant was ever operating under those same conditions or not. There are decades of reliance on Case Law and Stare Decisis, so folks looking at the facts of a case have previous decisions upon which to base their opinions and actions. I cannot present a case to a DA for Aggravated Arson if it does not meet the appropriate elements of the Statute. Except the ATF. If Examiner A tells you "It's Okay" on January 1st, there's no recourse if Examiner B suddenly decides your hi-tops are DD's on March 1st. As an Investigator I conduct an investigation, review the case and make recommendations to the State's Attorney (Executive Branch) for prosecution, using rules, codified as Statutes or Ordinances, that were constructed by the Legislative branch. I can be called as a witness but the actual prosecution is conducted by an outside agency. The ATF, operating under US Code written by the Legislative Branch, also has the ability to offer interpretations of the Code that go beyond it (the Code as written), and bear the full force of law; they conduct the investigation and are a party involved in the active prosecution, with no separation between rulemaking, investigation and prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 13, 2013 at 04:28 AM Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 04:28 AM How is it that the ATF regulates firearms but doesn't understand firearms law? I posted this on another forum but it applies here. The biggest problems I have with the agency (that show how out of control they are): While IL Statute allows "the Fire Chief or his designee" to investigate fires, I cannot bill myself as an "Investigator" unless I have completed a certain number of state-specified courses successfully, and if I go to court my credentials can become a matter of consideration. However, at the ATF, a "firearms expert" is a title, not a description of job expertise, training, knowledge or experience, yet the Federal Courts accept the title from someone with no training whatsoever the same as someone with expert knowledge of firearms design, construction and/or operation. As a LE investigator the procedure and methodology I use conducting my investigations is subject to the Daubert and/or Frye standards, just as the work of every other "professional" is, as well as the generic concept of the "Scientific method", that is, another individual given the same knowledge, experience, tools, evidence and data should be able to reach similar results. Except the ATF. They don't need to prove their methodology, state the methods by which they obtained their results, or show consistency from Case #1 to Case #87. They can say "this is a device that allows the firing of more than one round at a time from a firearm, therefore is meets the definition of a machine gun" and point to a shoelace and be correct within the construct of their own sterile existence. They can also modify the conditions of examination until a desired result is achieved, whether or not the defendant was ever operating under those same conditions or not. There are decades of reliance on Case Law and Stare Decisis, so folks looking at the facts of a case have previous decisions upon which to base their opinions and actions. I cannot present a case to a DA for Aggravated Arson if it does not meet the appropriate elements of the Statute. Except the ATF. If Examiner A tells you "It's Okay" on January 1st, there's no recourse if Examiner B suddenly decides your hi-tops are DD's on March 1st. As an Investigator I conduct an investigation, review the case and make recommendations to the State's Attorney (Executive Branch) for prosecution, using rules, codified as Statutes or Ordinances, that were constructed by the Legislative branch. I can be called as a witness but the actual prosecution is conducted by an outside agency. The ATF, operating under US Code written by the Legislative Branch, also has the ability to offer interpretations of the Code that go beyond it (the Code as written), and bear the full force of law; they conduct the investigation and are a party involved in the active prosecution, with no separation between rulemaking, investigation and prosecution. This, this, a million freaking times this. This is why I posted. The craziness that is BATFE in that they can not just interpret, but actually manipulate the law to mean however they choose it to and then prosecute at will. Shoelace machinguns and Brillo pad silencers used to prosecute for constructive intent are asinine, yet people can go to jail for it. Sorry for the rant, but my blood pressure has been spiked all day over this insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted July 15, 2013 at 01:07 PM Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 01:07 PM ETA - if it's any help I just found this on Page 31 of The Illinois Secretary of State Legal Update 2012-2013 "Firearms " 720 ILCS 5/1-3 Effective Date: 01/01/13 Public Act: 97-0936 House Bill: 4901 Synopsis: Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting. Provides that the exemption applies to a person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or ( the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feh Posted July 25, 2013 at 05:20 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 05:20 PM Well, I have my C&R, and my NFA trust all set up, funded and properly constituted. Have my 2xForm 1s filled up as a trustCertification of compliance all filled upCopy of the public act 097-0936 (HB4901) to allow SBRs by Curio & Relic License holders Will be sending out my package on Monday. Will post updates of what I hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armored223 Posted July 25, 2013 at 05:58 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 05:58 PM Mine went pending may 1. They told me couple weeks ago when I called 9 months from pending date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wi300 Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:03 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:03 PM Gun Trust. Just go around him. Or does Illinois law somehow prohibit it? The trust is the way to go in the first place, it assures that your NFA items will be still held by people in the trust in the event of your untimely demise. You'll see them highish priced 350 bucks plus. In all honesty unless I was doing a full auto or a lot of firearms = a lot of money. I'd just do what I did and do it for 50 bucks. Here are a couple of links to get you going. http://nwgunlawgroup.com/ http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/states/illinois/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feh Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:55 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:55 PM Actually, I just ran into some problems... The bank I used to create my trust account wouldn't notarize my trust document for me, they're scared of the wording "firearm" in the trust. I'll find a notary that actually deals with trusts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:01 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:01 PM Actually, I just ran into some problems... The bank I used to create my trust account wouldn't notarize my trust document for me, they're scared of the wording "firearm" in the trust. I'll find a notary that actually deals with trusts. Or simply go to a currency exchange where the hourly employee likely won't flinch at the wording... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:14 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:14 PM One of the complications seems to be that dealers can not have sbrs so they are scratching their headSo the loop hole is out of state residents can move into IL with their existing SBR's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:15 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:15 PM This reintroduces my idea of the RRA PDS pistol or the Kriss Vector pistol for home defense. I dare not call them SBR's but they would be the next best thing to a SBR.That would be pricey for if you have to use it, it will sit in an evidence locker. I do like the vector kriss but man, 1800 for a pistol.I really don't care what happens to it after I use it. $1,800 is certainly worth my life. No? To be honest none of my rifles are worth less than $1,800 and certainly if I built an SBR it too would be in excess of $1,800 as well. I never understood the logic of this argument when people are discussing self defense weapons. I want the absolute most reliable I can afford, and that usually will cost more than hi-point money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armored223 Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:56 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 07:56 PM One of the complications seems to be that dealers can not have sbrs so they are scratching their headSo the loop hole is out of state residents can move into IL with their existing SBR's? No they still have to move them to Illinois with ATF and have the cr. what Todd is saying is that the law passed does not allow an ffl01 to apply for a tax stamp and you can't have ffl01 and ffl03 both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 25, 2013 at 08:51 PM Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 08:51 PM Just got off the phone with Mr. Clutter. based upon the documents provided, NFA branch agrees that holders of C&R licenses, are not restricted to SBRs that fall under C&R designation and can own modern SBRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.