Amendment to SB 1007 filed

[45superman]

Rep. Ed Sullivan has filed an amendment that would completely change SB 1007 (standard capacity magazine ban). It guts and replaces Kotowski's text, and would basically make a felony "more illegal" if a standard capacity magazine was used in the commission of the felony:

 

AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1007

 

AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend Senate Bill 1007 by replacing

everything after the enacting clause with the following:

 

"Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding

Section 24-1.8 as follows:

 

(720 ILCS 5/24-1.8 new)

Sec. 24-1.8. Use of large capacity ammunition feeding

devices in the commission of a felony.

(a) As used in this Section:

"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a

detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device

that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or

converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not

include an attached tubular device, any device designed to be

used with an antique firearm as defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11,

any device designed to be used with a muzzle-loading firearm

used for "black powder" hunting, any device designed as a

reproduction of a historical piece of military equipment for

use in battle re-enactments, or any device that has been made

permanently inoperable.

( Sentence. A person who knowingly uses a firearm that

has attached to it a large capacity ammunition feeding device

in the commission of a felony shall in addition to the penalty

imposed for the underlying offense be sentenced to an

additional term of imprisonment as follows:

(1) if the person committed the offense while armed

with the firearm that has attached to it a large capacity

ammunition feeding device, 15 years shall be added to the

term of imprisonment imposed by the court;

(2) if, during the commission of the offense, the

person personally discharged the firearm, 20 years shall be

added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court; and

(3) if, during the commission of the offense, the

person personally discharged the firearm that proximately

caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent

disfigurement, or death to another person, 25 years or up

to a term of natural life shall be added to the term of

imprisonment imposed by the court.".

[anthrem]

Rep. Ed Sullivan has filed an amendment that would completely change SB 1007 (standard capacity magazine ban). It guts and replaces Kotowski's text, and would basically make a felony "more illegal" if a standard capacity magazine was used in the commission of the felony:

 

At least, on it's face, this is significantly less stupid than Kotowski's bill, I am wary....

[Ocellairs]

...on its face. I would say this is an idea that should continue on with other bills. The anti's are stripping bills, so why not the other side. Of course the other side has the power to destrip; as in not allowing stripping to be done by our side.

[GarandFan]

Good job, Sullivan.

 

What the hey!!!? Do they think they cannot pass it? Sullivan is a co-sponsor. Does he usually vote anti-gun rights?

 

Stiffer punishment for crimes of violence? While it's wise to be reasonable, I generally have no problem with that, unless it's to offset a lack of arrest, conviction, and punishment.

[45superman]

Sullivan is a co-sponsor. Does he usually vote anti-gun rights?

 

Before he signed on as Alternate Chief Co-sponsor, we had considered Sullivan safely pro-rights. We had him rated "green" (actually, we still do--one of the reasons I think it's time to update our legislator ratings), and for the 2006 election, he was NRA endorsed, with a "B" grade.

 

When some of us expressed our displeasure, he tried to mollify us with the BS excuse that by compromising, and supporting a magazine capacity limit, he was appeasing the anti-rights extremists--the only way, he claimed, to prevent something even more heinous, like a ban on .50 caliber rifles and so-called "assault weapons."

[ilphil]

I think it is perfect for making a mockery of Kowtowski's bill.

The exception it makes for those dreaded high-capacity muzzle loaders almost made me fall off the chair laughing...

[GarandFan]

Superman,

 

Yes, thank you. Now I recall.

 

But at any rate, that amendment (if adopted) completely guts out the heinousness of that bill. Those of us worried about such a (ban) bill use those magazines for the shooting range, for participating in shooting matches, and for use in defensive firearms. None of us (the law-abiding gun owners in general) would commit a felony with such a firearm or magazine anyway, and would only use such a firearm in legitimate and lawful self-defense. So that amendment would almost certainly not affect the law-abiding. I have not scrutinized the amendment, but have scanned over it.

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to understand Sullivan's reasoning or rationale for offering that amendment.

[TTIN]

Superman,

 

Yes, thank you. Now I recall.

 

But at any rate, that amendment (if adopted) completely guts out the heinousness of that bill. Those of us worried about such a (ban) bill use those magazines for the shooting range, for participating in shooting matches, and for use in defensive firearms. None of us (the law-abiding gun owners in general) would commit a felony with such a firearm or magazine anyway, and would only use such a firearm in legitimate and lawful self-defense. So that amendment would almost certainly not affect the law-abiding. I have not scrutinized the amendment, but have scanned over it.

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to understand Sullivan's reasoning or rationale for offering that amendment.

 

I don't know GF....what if you were somehow charged with an illegal shooting by some over-zealoes cop?Even if you perceive that you acted in self defense.

[45superman]

I agree that the bill, if Sullivan's amendment is adopted, would have little effect on us, as a practical matter. As a matter of principle, though, I'm offended by the ridiculous implication that violent crime committed with magazines of some arbitrarily designated "high capacity" is somehow worse than equally violent crime committed by some other means.

 

I do share your curiosity about Sullivan's motivation.

[45superman]

I don't know GF....what if you were somehow charged with an illegal shooting by some over-zealoes cop?Even if you perceive that you acted in self defense.

 

That's a good point. Take the case of Harold Fish, who shot and killed someone in what may very well have been self-defense, but was convicted of murder anyway. If Arizona had had this kind of law in place, another 25 years or more would have been added to the sentence of a man who may only have been "guilty" of defending his life.

[billzfx4]

As a matter of principle, though, I'm offended by the ridiculous implication that violent crime committed with magazines of some arbitrarily designated "high capacity" is somehow worse than equally violent crime committed by some other means.

 

I agree, a violent crime is still a violent crime regardless of the devise used to commit it. Be it a high-capacity mag. a standard-capacity mag. a rock or a wooden spoon from the kitchen, the fact still remains that these are inanimate objects, it takes a person with bad intentions to make them harmful. I really believe that the focus should be on the crime itself, not so much the means by which it was commited.

[Buzzard]

I think it's a load of crap. And what happens if possession of a rifle that accepts magazines becomes a felony? And when they find said rifle it has a thirty round clip in it?

 

(1) if the person committed the offense while armed

with the firearm that has attached to it a large capacity

ammunition feeding device, 15 years shall be added to the

term of imprisonment imposed by the court;

 

(2) if, during the commission of the offense, the

person personally discharged the firearm, 20 years shall be

added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court

It's only ten years imprisonment for possession of an automatic weapon! What happens when your old worn out AR15 suddenly fires a burst of three or four and jams with a magazine that holds thirty rounds? Are you guys willing to spend 30 years in prison?

 

This is a very dangerous bill!! Make the law so that it punishes the crime, not the gun or accessories!!

 

Please tell me you people are going to fight this bill!!

[sticks]

Please tell me you people are going to fight this bill!!

I am against any and all anti-gun anti-2nd amendment legislation. The idea of letting them have one piece of legislation (because it is not quite as bad) which takes away our rights is not acceptable to me. Each anti-gun anti-2nd amendment bill that is passed, only gives them more of an incentive to attempt to pass another such bill, taking away another right; and on & on & on.