48 replies to this topic

[Blaster]

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)782-1448
rep@pbellock.com


Berrios (217) 558-1032 773) 235-3939

Bob Biggins(630) 941-1278 (217)782-6578
bobbiggins@comcast.net

William B. Black(217) 431-1986 (217)782-4811
wbblack@cooketech.net

Mike Boland(309) 736-3360 (217)782-3992
ilrepmikeboland@aol.com

Mike Bost(618) 457-5787 (217)782-0387
mikebost@midwestmail.com

John E. Bradley(618) 997-9697 (217)782-1051

Richard T. Bradley(773) 794-9444 (217)782-8117
rbradley@hdsmail.state.il.us

Dan Brady309) 662-1100 (217)782-1118

Rich Brauer(217) 782-0053 (217)782-0053
brauerr@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)782-4014
info@leedaniels.com

Monique D. Davis (773) 445-9700 (217)782-0010
mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us

Steve Davis 782-5996

William Davis(708) 799-7300 (217)782-8197
williamd@legis.state.il.us

Delgado(217) 782-0480 (773) 292-0202

Lisa M. Dugan(815) 939-1983 (217)782-5981
lisadugan@sbcglobal.net


Joe Dunn (630) 355-4113 (217)782-6507
joe@josephdunn.com

Roger L. Eddy (618) 563-4128 (217)558-1040
reddyunit1@aol.com


Robert F. Flider  (217) 428-2708 (217)782-8398
bobflider@repflider.com

Mary E. Flowers (773) 471-5200 (217)782-4207
mflowers@hdsmail.state.il.us


Jack D. Franks (815) 334-0063 (217)782-1717
jack@jackfranks.org

Fritchey (217) 782-2458 (773) 871-4000

Paul D. Froehlich (847) 985-9210 (217)782-3725
staterepPaul@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)782-8071
hannig@hdsmail.state.il.us

Brent Hassert(630) 739-7063 (217)782-4179

Jay C. Hoffman (618) 345-2176 (217)782-8018
hoffman@legis.state.il.us

Thomas Holbrook (618) 394-2211 (217)782-0104

Constance A. Howard (773) 783-8800 (217)782-6476
strephow@legis.state.il.us

Randall M. Hultgren (630) 682-8100 (217)782-1653
randy@rhultgren.com

Naomi D. Jakobsson (217) 373-5000 (217)558-1009
n.jakobsson@worldnet.att.net

Jefferson (217) 782-3167 (815) 987-7433

Jenish (217) 782-8158 (630) 653-4545

Lovana Jones(773) 373-9400 (217)782-2023
ljones@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)782-1252
RepLouLang@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)782-0494
mail@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)782-1664
sidneymath@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)782-8182
mmcauliffe20@yahoo.com

Kevin A. McCarthy(708) 226-1999 (217)782-3316 kevmac37@att.net

Jack McGuire (815) 730-8600 (217)782-8090
jmcguire86@sbcglobal.net

Larry McKeon (773) 348-3434 (217)782-3835
lmckeon@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)782-8087
repdavidmiller@aol.com

John J. Millner (630) 524-9250 (217)558-1037
johntmillner@aol.com

Bill Mitchell (217) 876-1968 (217)782-8163
repmitchell@earthlink.net

Jerry L. Mitchell (815) 625-0820 (217)782-0535
repjmitchell@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)782-8020
ruthmunson@ruthmunson.com

Richard P. Myers (309) 836-2707 (217)782-0416
repmyers@macomb.com

Nekritz (217) 558-1004 (847) 257-0450

JoAnn D. Osmond  (847) 838-6200 (217)782-8151
osmondjoann@aol.com

Osterman (217) 782-8088 (773) 784-2002



Terry R. Parke (847) 882-0270 (217)782-0347
cityparkxx@yahoo.com

Brandon W. Phelps(618) 253-4189 (217)782-5131
bphelps@hdsmail.state.il.us

Sandra M. Pihos(630) 858-8855 (217)782-8037

Raymond Poe (217) 782-0044 (217)782-0044
poer@housegopmail.state.il.us

Robert W. Pritchard (815) 748-3494 (217)782-0425
70thdist@pritchardstaterep.com

Reis(217) 782-2087 (618) 392-0108

Dan Reitz (815) 748-3494 (217)782-1018
repreitz@egyptian.net

Robert Rita(708) 396-2822 (217)558-1000
robertbobrita@aol.com

Chapin Rose  (217) 348-7673 (217)558-1006
chapin@chapinrose.com


Jim Sacia  (815) 232-0774 (217)782-8186
jimsacia@aeroinc.net

Angelo Saviano (708) 453-7547 (217)782-3374 skip@saviano.com

Timothy L. Schmitz (630) 845-9590 (217)782-5457
reptimschmitz@aol.com

George Scully (708) 709-0579 (217)782-1719
repscully@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)782-6401
ron@repstephens.com

Ed Sullivan (847) 566-5115 (217)782-3696
ilhouse51@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)782-5970
pverschoore@legis.state.il.us

[color="green"]Ronald A. Wait (309) 793-4716 (217)782-0548 RepWait@aol.com

[color="green"]Jim Watson (217) 243-6221 (217)782-1840
jimwatson@localnetco.com

[color="green"]Dave Winters(815) 282-0083 (217)782-0455 repwinters@aol.com

[color="red"]Yarbrough(217) 782-8120 (708) 615-1747

[color=green]Wyvetter H. Younge(708) 615-1747 (217)782-5951

[Lou]

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]

I noticed Patti Bellock didn't have an e-mail address.  Use
this one:    rep@pbellock.com

[Blaster]

Lou, on Oct 27 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

I noticed Patti Bellock didn't have an e-mail address.  Use
this one:    rep@pbellock.com

Added to list

[Druid]

wow, for once my anti-gun rep voted good   I'll have to thank him for sure.

[45superman]

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 hell--lets tell them we want SB 57, too, just in case that happens to make it through the Senate.

[45superman]

By the way, Rod is still working hard to uphold the veto:

Quote

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]

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]

Time to regroup, and go on the offensive!!!!  


Wolverines!!!!!!    

[SmershAgent]

Ocellairs, on Oct 27 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

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]

SmershAgent, on Oct 28 2005, 08:33 AM, said:

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]

SmershAgent, on Oct 28 2005, 08:33 AM, said:

Ocellairs, on Oct 27 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

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]

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]

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]

Only transportation

Wilmette, Chicago, Oak Park(?), etc would still have their bans and/or registration for residents.

[45superman]

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):

Quote

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]

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]

Here's the ISRA's latest:

Senate votes to keep gun laws
Measure 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]

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]

Quote

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]

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]

SmershAgent, on Oct 28 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

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]

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.

[45superman]

Agreed.

[Blaster]

Bump

[Ol'Coach]

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]

An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  

Quote

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]

....here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

Smersh, you have to stop expecting logic from these people--you'll drive yourself to drink (at least that's the excuse I use   ).