Jump to content

Dealer Licensing Bill To Go To Pritzker


Lou

Recommended Posts

The part we object to is the Class A Misdemeanor for failing to do a private sale background check. Only honest gun owners are doing those checks anyway, so the penalty-free version was sort of a win/win. Too many gun owners are unaware of the background check requirement and could get tripped up.

 

Glad you explained that Mauser, the Synopsis made little sense to me either. Other than it is just more red tape that will do zip - zero - nada as far as stopping criminals from getting guns or what they like to refer to as "gun violence",

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not so stupid as to think that these new ideas will stop or even slow down a criminal one moment. They intend making gun ownership more difficult, more expensive, more of a hassle for law abiding citizens in the hope that it discourages gun ownership and that with fewer honest citizens buying and owning guns it will be harder for criminals to obtain guns. They are still pretty stupid if they believe this, because even if there were not a single privately owned gun in the State, so that none could be stolen, or sold illegally, etc. to a criminal, there would still be a big profit potential to bring guns in from out of state, and/or manufacture guns in secret workshops, etc, etc. The government, with all its power, cannot seem to even slow the flow of illegal drugs into our communities, and not even into prisons which are totally under government control. The government cannot stop people from getting into the country illegally. Yet politicians in Illinois seem to think that they can do anything meaningful to ultimately keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And if they think that honest citizens are being preyed upon by armed criminals now, just wait until the criminals realize that fewer and fewer good people will own a gun and be able to resist their attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this have any effect on C+R licenses?

Hard to say. There was an exemption written into prior passed bill but with new gov and ilga who knows what will stay

 

Section 5-25. Exemptions.

21 The provisions of this Act related to the certification of

22 a license do not apply to a person or entity that engages in

23 the following activities:

 

(9) transfers of curios and relics, as defined under

8 federal law, between collectors licensed under subsection

9 (B) of Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Wait. I thought the bill would die with the 100th GA. How does the bill survive the change over?

 

It is called the technological marvel of copy and paste. They take ten minutes to vote on it and voila, on Jabba Da Butts desk.

 

They didn't even vote on it in this assembly, they just magicked it into limbo last year and sent it to the new governor this year

 

5/31/2018 Senate Motion Filed to Reconsider Vote Sen. John J. Cullerton

1/8/2019 Senate Motion Withdrawn Sen. John J. Cullerton

1/8/2019 Senate Passed Both Houses

1/16/2019 Senate Sent to the Governor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what the Dems are doing is a test to see what they can get away with. Put a hold on it, old assembly ends but the bill is in limbo, is it sine die or not. If Pritzker's signing survives a court challenge, they then have precedent for future legislation. If it fails, they will just pass it again, they have the votes to do it.

 

I believe that the Democrats think they will always be in the majority and that there is no way in the foreseeable future that this will come back and bite them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.multistate.us/state2019-legislative-session-deadlinesfrom a few different legal sites it looks like Illinois is a bill carryover state after adjournment sine die.

..."Longtime statehouse observer and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Kent Redfield said it’s technically possible for lawmakers to hold a bill that passed in one General Assembly and then pass it onto a new governor. He said it’s an ambiguous area that he’s not aware has been fully litigated."...

 

..."Per the state constitution, lawmakers are supposed to send measures that passed both chambers to the governor within 30 days of passing. A procedural hold called a motion to reconsider was used on House Bill 40 in 2017 after it passed both chambers. That hold kept the controversial bill allowing more tax dollars for abortions from the governor for a total of four months. The hold was eventually lifted and sent to the governor who signed the bill. A lawsuit challenging that procedure as an abuse of the legislative process has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, but whether the court will hear it is still not known....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...