Blaster Posted October 27, 2005 at 09:26 PM Posted October 27, 2005 at 09:26 PM Link to bill info The veto override passed in the Senate 038-020-000. I just talked to Rep.Phelps and he said we need everyone to contact their Rep's especially the folks living in the Chicago area. He said that this is common sense legislation and that we need to have Rep's from the Chicago area on our side to get this done. So if you live in the northern part of the state make those calls. Downstaters need to keep the pressure on also. 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 before, on, or after the effective date of this amendatory Act 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. Contact list for House List below is how they voted in the Spring. Frank Aguilar 782-8173 Patricia Bailey (773) 471-9270 (217)782-5971 shemoca@aol.com Suzanne Bassi(847) 776-1880 (217)782-8026 repbassi@aol.com Mark H. Beaubien(847) 487-5252 (217)782-1517 strepmbeaubien@aol.com Patricia R. Bellock(630) 852-8633 (217)782-1448rep@pbellock.com Berrios (217) 558-1032 773) 235-3939 Bob Biggins(630) 941-1278 (217)782-6578bobbiggins@comcast.net William B. Black(217) 431-1986 (217)782-4811wbblack@cooketech.net Mike Boland(309) 736-3360 (217)782-3992ilrepmikeboland@aol.com Mike Bost(618) 457-5787 (217)782-0387mikebost@midwestmail.com John E. Bradley(618) 997-9697 (217)782-1051 Richard T. Bradley(773) 794-9444 (217)782-8117rbradley@hdsmail.state.il.us Dan Brady309) 662-1100 (217)782-1118 Rich Brauer(217) 782-0053 (217)782-0053brauerr@housegopmail.state.il.us Robert W. Churchill(847) 231-6262 (217)782-7320 Annazette Collins(773) 533-0010 (217)782-8077 Colvin (217) 782-8272 (773) 783-8492 Tom Cross(815) 254-0000 (217)782-1331 tom@tomcross.com Shane Cultra(815) 268-4090 (217)558-1039 Lee A. Daniels(630) 530-2700 (217)782-4014info@leedaniels.com Monique D. Davis (773) 445-9700 (217)782-0010mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us Steve Davis 782-5996 William Davis(708) 799-7300 (217)782-8197williamd@legis.state.il.us Delgado(217) 782-0480 (773) 292-0202 Lisa M. Dugan(815) 939-1983 (217)782-5981lisadugan@sbcglobal.net Joe Dunn (630) 355-4113 (217)782-6507joe@josephdunn.com Roger L. Eddy (618) 563-4128 (217)558-1040reddyunit1@aol.com Robert F. Flider (217) 428-2708 (217)782-8398bobflider@repflider.com Mary E. Flowers (773) 471-5200 (217)782-4207mflowers@hdsmail.state.il.us Jack D. Franks (815) 334-0063 (217)782-1717jack@jackfranks.org Fritchey (217) 782-2458 (773) 871-4000 Paul D. Froehlich (847) 985-9210 (217)782-3725staterepPaul@sbcglobal.net Calvin L. Giles (773) 287-6700 (217)782-5962 Careen Gordon (815) 634-3096 (217)782-5997 Graham (217) 782-6400 (708) 445-9520 Kurt M. Granberg (618) 533-0296 (217)782-0066 William J. Grunloh 782-2087 Hamos (217) 782-8052 (847) 424-9898 Gary Hannig (217) 839-2859 (217)782-8071hannig@hdsmail.state.il.us Brent Hassert(630) 739-7063 (217)782-4179 Jay C. Hoffman (618) 345-2176 (217)782-8018hoffman@legis.state.il.us Thomas Holbrook (618) 394-2211 (217)782-0104 Constance A. Howard (773) 783-8800 (217)782-6476strephow@legis.state.il.us Randall M. Hultgren (630) 682-8100 (217)782-1653randy@rhultgren.com Naomi D. Jakobsson (217) 373-5000 (217)558-1009n.jakobsson@worldnet.att.net Jefferson (217) 782-3167 (815) 987-7433 Jenish (217) 782-8158 (630) 653-4545 Lovana Jones(773) 373-9400 (217)782-2023ljones@housedem.state.il.us Joyce (217) 782-8200 (708) 448-3518 Kelly (217) 558-1007 (708) 283-0400 Renee Kosel(708) 479-4200 (217)782-0424 rkosel@aol.com Krause ® (217) 782-3739 (847) 255-3100 Rosemary Kurtz 782-0432 Lou Lang (847) 673-1131 (217)782-1252RepLouLang@aol.com David R. Leitch (309) 685-3900 (217)782-8108 Patricia Reid Linder (630) 466-9791 (217)782-1486 dstrct65@aol.com Eileen Lyons (708) 352-7700 (217)782-0494mail@eileenlyons.com Joseph M. Lyons (773) 286-1115 (217)782-8400 Michael J. Madigan (773) 581-8000 (217)782-5350 Sidney H. Mathias (847) 222-0061 (217)782-1664sidneymath@email.msn.com Frank J. Mautino (815) 664-2717 (217)782-0140 May (217) 782-0902 (847) 831-5858 Michael P. McAuliffe (773) 792-0749 (217)782-8182mmcauliffe20@yahoo.com Kevin A. McCarthy(708) 226-1999 (217)782-3316 kevmac37@att.net Jack McGuire (815) 730-8600 (217)782-8090jmcguire86@sbcglobal.net Larry McKeon (773) 348-3434 (217)782-3835lmckeon@larrymckeon.com Susana Mendoza (773) 277-7711 (217)782-7752 Repmendoza@aol.com[/email] James H. Meyer(630) 717-7141 (217)782-8028 jhmeyer@msn.com David E. Miller(708) 201-8000 (217)782-8087repdavidmiller@aol.com John J. Millner (630) 524-9250 (217)558-1037johntmillner@aol.com Bill Mitchell (217) 876-1968 (217)782-8163repmitchell@earthlink.net Jerry L. Mitchell (815) 625-0820 (217)782-0535repjmitchell@cin.net Donald Moffitt (309) 343-8000 Robert S. Molaro (773) 838-1212 (217)782-5280 Charles G. Morrow 782-1702 Mulligan ® (217) 782-8007 (847) 297-6533 Ruth Munson (847) 622-1048 (217)782-8020ruthmunson@ruthmunson.com Richard P. Myers (309) 836-2707 (217)782-0416repmyers@macomb.com Nekritz (217) 558-1004 (847) 257-0450 JoAnn D. Osmond (847) 838-6200 (217)782-8151osmondjoann@aol.com Osterman (217) 782-8088 (773) 784-2002 Terry R. Parke (847) 882-0270 (217)782-0347cityparkxx@yahoo.com Brandon W. Phelps(618) 253-4189 (217)782-5131bphelps@hdsmail.state.il.us Sandra M. Pihos(630) 858-8855 (217)782-8037 Raymond Poe (217) 782-0044 (217)782-0044poer@housegopmail.state.il.us Robert W. Pritchard (815) 748-3494 (217)782-042570thdist@pritchardstaterep.com Reis(217) 782-2087 (618) 392-0108 Dan Reitz (815) 748-3494 (217)782-1018repreitz@egyptian.net Robert Rita(708) 396-2822 (217)558-1000robertbobrita@aol.com Chapin Rose (217) 348-7673 (217)558-1006chapin@chapinrose.com Jim Sacia (815) 232-0774 (217)782-8186jimsacia@aeroinc.net Angelo Saviano (708) 453-7547 (217)782-3374 skip@saviano.com Timothy L. Schmitz (630) 845-9590 (217)782-5457reptimschmitz@aol.com George Scully (708) 709-0579 (217)782-1719repscully@sbcglobal.net Michael K. Smith (309) 647-7479 (217)782-8152 mks@winco.net Keith P. Sommer(309) 263-9242 (217)782-0221 sommer@mtco.com Ron Stephens (618) 651-0405 (217)782-6401ron@repstephens.com Ed Sullivan (847) 566-5115 (217)782-3696ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net Art Tenhouse (217) 223-0833 (217)782-8096 Tenhouse@adams.net Arthur L. Turner (773) 277-4700 (217)782-8116 Patrick Verschoore (309) 793-4716 (217)782-5970pverschoore@legis.state.il.us Ronald A. Wait (309) 793-4716 (217)782-0548 RepWait@aol.com Jim Watson (217) 243-6221 (217)782-1840jimwatson@localnetco.com Dave Winters(815) 282-0083 (217)782-0455 repwinters@aol.com Yarbrough(217) 782-8120 (708) 615-1747 Wyvetter H. Younge(708) 615-1747 (217)782-5951
Lou Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:11 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:11 AM I've already sent a letter to my senator thanking him and one to my rep thanking her in advance for reinforceing her earlier vote. I've heard talk here that Dupage County is a liberal as Crook County but after monitoring my reps votes that seem to vote on the "right" side more often than not.
Lou Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:13 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:13 AM I noticed Patti Bellock didn't have an e-mail address. Use this one: rep@pbellock.com
Blaster Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:34 AM Author Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:34 AM I noticed Patti Bellock didn't have an e-mail address. Use this one: rep@pbellock.com Added to list
Druid Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:44 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:44 AM wow, for once my anti-gun rep voted good I'll have to thank him for sure.
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:58 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 12:58 AM Blaster--nice work posting the contact info. Folks, we don't want to take anything for granted here--we want to make bloody certain that the Reps will be completely aware that we are expecting them to do the right thing Wednesday. As I said earlier today, we have come too far to lose this vital piece of legislation out of complacency. We're in the home stretch here--just another week of emails and phone calls, and then we can rest up until spring. While we're at it, tell the Reps to vote to override the HB 340 veto, and what the heck--lets tell them we want SB 57, too, just in case that happens to make it through the Senate.
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 02:26 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 02:26 AM By the way, Rod is still working hard to uphold the veto: Gov. Blagojevich Turns Department of Natural Resources Against Hunters and Sportsmen SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Oct. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA): In a move that is sure to anger downstate hunters and sportsmen, Gov. Rod Blagojevich has directed lobbyists for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to pressure legislators to vote against overriding Blagojevich's veto of SB2104. Sponsored by Sen. Todd Sieben (R-Geneseo), SB2104 sets a statewide standard for the transportation of firearms by hunters and sportsmen. If passed, SB2104 would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local ordinances that could cause an otherwise law-abiding hunter or sportsman to unintentionally run afoul of the law. The bill enjoyed solid bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Nonetheless, Gov. Blagojevich bowed to pressure from Chicago Mayor Daley and vetoed SB2104 on Aug. 1 of this year. Earlier today, the Senate voted 38-20 to override Blagojevich's veto of SB2104. An override vote is expected in the House some time next week. "Just prior to today's vote, we became aware that the DNR lobbyists were working feverishly against the override," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "We found this very unusual since SB2104 offers great benefit to the state's law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. With an election year coming up, Gov. Blagojevich may have shot himself in the foot but good. It will be interesting to see how he explains to downstate voters the reason why he had the DNR lobbying against a measure that would prevent hunters and sportsmen from having their hunting rifles, shotguns and vehicles confiscated for a violation of an obscure village ordinance. From the Isra website. All the more reason we need to keep on the Reps.
Ocellairs Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:06 AM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:06 AM I suspect that it just won't be the down state hunters that get a knot in their tail. I can't even really seeing the DNR going along on this. ...but it's just an opinion.
c-rock Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:05 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:05 PM Time to regroup, and go on the offensive!!!! Wolverines!!!!!!
SmershAgent Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:33 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:33 PM I suspect that it just won't be the down state hunters that get a knot in their tail. I can't even really seeing the DNR going along on this. ...but it's just an opinion. I agree with you. I'm sure there are a couple of political appointees in top DNR positions who will make a fuss if Rod gives them the nod (just like with the ISP), but I don't forsee the organization taking any huge risks over this. It's pretty pathetic that even such a minor, innocuous bill provokes such horror in Chicago politicians.
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:35 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 01:35 PM It's pretty pathetic that even such a minor, innocuous bill provokes such horror in Chicago politicians. True, but that will make overriding the veto all the more satisfying.
Ocellairs Posted October 28, 2005 at 02:54 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 02:54 PM I suspect that it just won't be the down state hunters that get a knot in their tail. I can't even really seeing the DNR going along on this. ...but it's just an opinion.I agree with you. I'm sure there are a couple of political appointees in top DNR positions who will make a fuss if Rod gives them the nod (just like with the ISP), but I don't forsee the organization taking any huge risks over this. It's pretty pathetic that even such a minor, innocuous bill provokes such horror in Chicago politicians. ...that's what they are afraid of...the gun control hopes are slowing spinning around the drain hole, and that hole is big has a black hole. ....it's sucking their whole ideas down into the black darkness. "But we're not out of the woods yet. Wormholes are known to close up, and they aren't stable....as seen on DS9, STNG, and V.
44Brent Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:04 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:04 PM Why anti-gunners HATE this bill. The passage of this bill will reduce the required number of votes to pass a right-to-carry bill from 60% majority to 51% majority in both houses. A right-to-carry law requires a pre-emption component for "transport" of pistols, which this law provides. Assuming this bill passes AND Illinois gets a good governor, a simple majority in both houses is all that is required to get a right-to-carry bill passed. 60% majority votes are required to pass bills that pre-empt home rule authority, and home rule authority will be gone once this bill is passed. Therefore, it is CRITICAL to get this bill passed now.
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:39 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:39 PM So this would end home rule authority for all issues related to firearms? I had assumed it applied only to tranportation. Do you mean that the requirement to register all guns in Chicago, the ban on handguns in Wilmette, etc., would all be gone? I certainly hope you're right, but that's not how I read it.
dorvinion Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:44 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:44 PM Only transportation Wilmette, Chicago, Oak Park(?), etc would still have their bans and/or registration for residents.
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:54 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:54 PM Dorvinion, I think you're right. Now if the preemption measure were worded the same way as in SB 57 (before the House amended the preemption language out), it would be a different story(except in Chicago):6) provides for home rule preemption of local governmental regulation of the acquisition, possession, transportation, storage, purchase, sale, or other dealings in firearms and ammunition in a manner other than as provided by State law in municipalities of less than 2,000,000 inhabitants. 44Brent--I think this state makes a distinction (a strange one) between "transporting" and "carrying," (which is why "transporting" a gun in a fanny pack is legal, but "carrying" one in an open holster is not). So I think a concealed carry law would still have to deal with the "preempts home rule" situation--even with transportation preemption.
SmershAgent Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:56 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 04:56 PM My take was also that it only affected transporting. I figured Chicago would still play the supermajority card for a concealed carry bill because it would interfere with their registration scheme and restrictions on "posession". I hope 44Brent is correct, of course, but even if not - 2104 is still going to pave the way for more inroads next year.
SmershAgent Posted October 28, 2005 at 05:46 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 05:46 PM Here's the ISRA's latest: Senate votes to keep gun lawsMeasure tells cities to stick to state standards Remember, this bill has to pass the house again. Gun owners scored a victory Thursday when the Illinois Senate voted to keep a statewide standard for transporting guns rather than let local communities set their own rules. By a 38-20 vote, the Senate overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of a bill prohibiting communities from enacting gun transportation laws different from state law. Although state law specifies how guns may be legally transported, some communities have enacted more restrictive ordinances. Proponents of the bill said that can lead to law-abiding gun owners being arrested for illegally transporting weapons. "I put a firearm in my vehicle and I happen to pass through one of these communities and I get pulled over for whatever reason, probably speeding," said Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville. "It (the gun) is cased and legal and I cross a boundary line somewhere and all of a sudden I become a felon. It isn't right." Under state law, guns can be legally transported if they are in a case not accessible to a driver or broken down so that they are inoperable. Sponsoring Sen. Todd Sieben, R-Geneseo, said that one community has made it illegal to carry a gun in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. "I drive a van. If I were hunting and drive through that town, I could be stopped, ticketed and fined," Sieben said. "That's not very practical to have a hodgepodge of state regulations for the legal transport of firearms." ...
SmershAgent Posted October 28, 2005 at 05:57 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 05:57 PM FYI, Senators Sullivan, Deleo, and Viverito originally voted 'no' on SB2104 but changed to 'yes' for the override. One is from Chicago, the other two are in nearby districts. I consider rolling these 3 votes a notable accomplishment.
Ol'Coach Posted October 28, 2005 at 06:50 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 06:50 PM Wilmette, Chicago, Oak Park(?), etc would still have their bans and/or registration for residents What if: Chicago resident gets stopped in Chicago for whatever while legally transporting a handgun after SB2104 becomes law, but the handgun isn't registered according to Chicago city code. What happens next? Though transporting legally, could the person be charged with illegal possession, or would that person have to be "caught" at his/her home address?
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 07:08 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 07:08 PM By my (admittedly far from complete) understanding, Chicago law does not prohibit ownership of handguns, just keeping them within the city limits. If this law passes, there's nothing they could do about transporting the handgun--they would have to catch you with it in the house. Does this mean a Chicago resident could store a gun in his car, indefinitely? I don't know--guess that depends on the legal definition of "transporting."
45superman Posted October 28, 2005 at 07:26 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 07:26 PM FYI, Senators Sullivan, Deleo, and Viverito originally voted 'no' on SB2104 but changed to 'yes' for the override. One is from Chicago, the other two are in nearby districts. I consider rolling these 3 votes a notable accomplishment.I think it was Ronen, DeLeo, and Viverito that came over from the dark side. J. Sullivan voted "Yes" both times--there was a D. Sullivan that voted "No" this spring, but he (or she?) doesn't seem to be on the Senate any longer. EDITED TO ADD: D. Sullivan was Dave Sullivan, in the 33rd Senate District--a Republican, but not a very pro-gun one. I'm not sure how Cheryl Axley got the position since then (I assume Sullivan retired), but she seems to be an improvement (she voted "Yes" on the override).
44Brent Posted October 28, 2005 at 09:52 PM Posted October 28, 2005 at 09:52 PM Everyone here sees the problems with a limited pre-emption bill: there is a gray area in transport vs. possession. All of the full pre-emption bills have been shot down because it was too big for many legislators to swallow. The lobbyists behind this probably only asked for what they knew they might get. Assuming this bill passes, all of the problem scenarios as described here need to be addressed with new bills that gradually chip away at all of the municipal ordinances. Incrementalism works both ways.
Ol'Coach Posted October 30, 2005 at 05:35 PM Posted October 30, 2005 at 05:35 PM 45: On my scenario, I agree with what you wrote. To picture it another way: Chicao resident with a FOID card legally transporting a legally owned firearm in Chicago but by Chicago code, illegally possessed! To put it another way, if it weren't in illegal possession, then it couldn't have been transported, but if it's being legally transported, how can it be illegally possessed as that point in time? I'd be willing to bet that one would have to go through the courts! And what about "transporting" it while walking? Transporting is defined as "...taking from one place to another." So, if a Chicago res has a valid FOID card and is walking while legally "transporting" a handgun in Chicago (handgun unloaded and enclosed in a case) is the person in violation? And what about a Chicago visitor? Probably in the interpretation of a Chicago LEO, but what about the law??
45superman Posted October 31, 2005 at 02:28 PM Posted October 31, 2005 at 02:28 PM An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Illinois governor faces showdown over vetoes on gun-control bills By Kevin McDermott POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU Monday, Oct. 31 2005 SPRINGFIELD, ILL. It's High Noon in Springfield - a showdown between legislators who are trying to loosen Illinois gun restrictions and Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is trying to stop them. As always, downstate Democrats will be lined up against their party's governor when the shooting starts. This is the final week of the Legislature's two-week "veto session," the last chance lawmakers will have to override vetoes. Among the bills Blagojevich vetoed are three that would ease state gun regulations and prevent local communities from imposing tougher ones. The Senate last week voted to override Blagojevich on one of the bills, and all three could be on the legislative agenda this week. If the vetoes are overriden, the laws would go on the books over the governor's objections. The effect would be a new rule requiring police to destroy gun-sale records after the sales are complete; the elimination of the current gun-sale waiting period when guns are being traded; and the striking down of local ordinances in Carbondale and other communities that impose tougher rules on gun-transportation than the state standards. The fight will again highlight an oddity of Illinois politics: When it comes to guns, the usual left-right, Democratic-Republican battle lines are re-drawn, and the fight rages north and south. "Downstate Democrats are almost always with us on gun bills," noted Rep. David Reis, R-Olney, who will rely heavily on Metro East Democrats in his attempt this week to override Blagojevich on the waiting-period issue. "It's those collar-county (Chicago-area) Republicans who can go either way." Indeed, last week's Senate vote to override Blagojevich and prevent local communities from restricting gun transportation wouldn't have happened without the almost unanimous backing of downstate legislators of both parties, including every Metro East-area Democrat. "Anywhere south of I-80, the NRA holds sway" among state legislators of both parties, said John S. Jackson, political scientist at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. "It's a cultural issue. If you put partisan loyalty against voting what you see as the wishes of your constituency, you're almost always going to go with your constituency," The gun-transportation bill would scuttle local ordinances that are more restrictive than state law. State law says guns can be transported in cars if they are unloaded and cased, or broken down, and out of the driver's reach. Some communities - including Chicago, several of its suburbs, and Carbondale - have enacted more restrictive ordinances. Pro-gun-rights advocates say that could lead to situations in which a hunter driving across Illinois, with a gun legally secured according to state statutes, could find himself breaking the law the moment he crosses into a community with a more restrictive statute. "We have citizens not knowing what the terms of these ordinances are" when they drive through a town, Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, argued in floor debate last week, in supporting the override. "These ordinances are unknown to passers-by, and that's not fair." But gun-control advocates point out that cities impose tougher driving restrictions than the state all the time. A cell-phone user who talks and drives without a hands-free device will be perfectly legal until he enters Chicago, for example, and then will be violating that city's cell-phone ordinance. In Carbondale, city ordinance bans any transportation of firearms in a vehicle. City Manager Jeff Doherty said that ordinance is part of the city's attempt to prevent concealed weapons in the college community. Among senators voting to override Blagojevich's veto, thus nullifying laws like Carbondale's, were Haine; Sen. James Clayborne, D-Belleville; Sen. Deanna Demuzio, D-Carlinville; and Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton. The measure passed 38-20, two votes over the three-fifths majority needed for a veto override. It now moves to the House, which even gun-control advocates concede probably will vote to override the veto. The gun-transportation bill is SB2104. The waiting-period bill is HB340. The gun records destruction bill is SB57.
Ocellairs Posted October 31, 2005 at 02:50 PM Posted October 31, 2005 at 02:50 PM ....here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The gun-transportation bill would scuttle local ordinances that are more restrictive than state law. State law says guns can be transported in cars if they are unloaded and cased, or broken down, and out of the driver's reach. When are they every going to get this right? One is not in violation of the code unless the weapon is uncased and loaded and within reach or both the weapon (uncased) and ammo are within reach. If the weapon is encased and unloaded, you still can have the ammo in the mag inside the case, and the case can be within reach and one is not in violation. ...and of course don't forget a valid FOID card.
SmershAgent Posted October 31, 2005 at 04:48 PM Posted October 31, 2005 at 04:48 PM In Carbondale, city ordinance bans any transportation of firearms in a vehicle. City Manager Jeff Doherty said that ordinance is part of the city's attempt to prevent concealed weapons in the college community. What does one thing have to do with the other?
45superman Posted October 31, 2005 at 04:52 PM Posted October 31, 2005 at 04:52 PM Smersh, you have to stop expecting logic from these people--you'll drive yourself to drink (at least that's the excuse I use ).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.