Jump to content

Quick Reference List: Gun Bills in 2011/2012 session


45superman

Recommended Posts

HB0264 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Denies home rule powers relating to permits and licenses for firearms. Effective immediately.

 

HB0265

- CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT

Amends 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

any one have any info on these 2 reps?

 

Rep. Daniel V. Beiser 111th District

Rep. 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

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 his

officers had spotted an armored car parked near an open area of

downtown. The doors were open and two individuals were seen near the

armored car. Neither had on uniforms but at least one was observed with

a firearm. It was suspected that this could be a hijacked armored car or

a robbery in progress. After back-up arrived, the officers approached

and disarmed the individuals. The individuals informed the officers that

they were employees of the armored car company, that the vehicle had

broken down, and that they were sent by their employer to guard the

truck until it could be towed. The officers asked the individuals for

identification as well as their state-issued Firearm Control Cards. (A

Firearm Control Card is issued by the Department of Financial and

Professional Regulation to authorize the carrying of a firearm by

private detectives, private alarm contractors, and security guards under

the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint

Vendor, and Locksmith Act.)

 

The individuals said that they did not have Firearm Control Cards and

didn't need them. This is what prompted the call to me. The Peoria

Police Department wanted to know if these armed guards of the armored

car company were required to have Firearm Control Cards to authorize

them to carry firearms. I said yes. I later received a telephone call

back from this same lieutenant. He related that he had spoken with a

representative of the armored car company and he was claiming that armed

guards of armored car companies were exempt from the law on carrying

firearms and did not require a Firearm Control Card. I gave the

lieutenant the cite to the section in the Criminal Code (Section

24-2(a)(8)that required Firearm Control Cards for armed guards of

armored car companies. I don't remember if I gave this to him in the

first or second call. The Department does not license or regulate

armored car companies. However, this section gives the Department the

responsibility to perform background checks on armed guards for armored

car companies, requires that the armed guards complete the same

classroom and firearm training as do armed security guards for private

security companies, and provides for the issuance of Firearm Control

Cards to the armed guards by the Department.)

 

I looked at the rest of Section 24-2 and saw that there was language in

paragraphs 4 and 9 that appeared to exempt armed guards of armored car

companies, in contrast to the provisions in paragraph 8. I spoke with

our Department supervisor who handles the Firearm Control Cards and we

reviewed his list of companies that had registered with the Department

and had applied for Firearm Control Cards for their armed guards. The

list contained the names of a number of armored car companies but I

could see that a number of companies, of which I was familiar, were not

included.

 

The purpose of our legislative proposal is to remove the conflict. We

presume that the legislature wants the Department to handle the

responsibility of performing background checks on armed guards of

armored car companies and issue Firearm Control Cards to signify their

approval and authority to carry firearms. Our proposal removes the

conflicting language in paragraphs 4 and 9. However, if the legislature

determines that it does not want the Department to carry out this task,

it should delete portions of paragraph 8. The Department needs

direction. Either the Department is responsible for the performing

background checks and issuing Firearm Control Cards or it is not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Were Constitutional Carry respected,it seems to me that the armored car SNAFU would be a moot point. :thumbsup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :thumbsup:

 

Yeah--I'm rather partial to that one, myself :huh:.

 

I think I'm caught up on the Senate bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed SB 75 as "good":

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends 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

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

I listed SB 75 as "good":

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends 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

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

That 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 :thumbsup: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed SB 75 as "good":

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends 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

i hate it when Todd does that...

 

yea its ours... now wait in anguish about it till later...

 

:thumbsup:

 

 

this is a baddy

 

SB0066

Amends 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

I'll be adding bills as they are noted, so keep an eye on this.

 

Good House bills

HB 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 bills

HB 0203 - CRIM CD-ONE GUN PER MONTH (2nd Amendment rationing, for handguns)

 

Questionable/neutral/shell bills in House

HB 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 bills

SB 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

this is a baddy

 

SB0066

Amends 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

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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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