48 replies to this topic

[SmershAgent]

45superman, on Oct 31 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

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

I advocate the Bill of Rights better when I've had a few.

[Ol'Coach]

It's 12:10, DST!  (If it makes a difference!)

[Druid]

I wonder how this bill would affect the Orland Park BB Gun transportation ban, if at all.

[Druid]

I think I found the answer.  
This talks about the BB gun issues in Aurora, and other things:

Quote

Abolish Illinois' mishmash of misguided gun laws

Monday, August 16, 2004

Illinois is one of only eight states that allow municipalities to prohibit and regulate the use of firearms through the license of home rule. Illinois municipalities have used their home rule license to pass collections of gun laws that can only be described as contradictory and incomprehensible.


An examination of municipal ordinances on the web site of the Illinois State Police, and an article titled "Wilmette enforces gun ban: Resident who shot intruder charged" by the Chicago Tribune, reveals that:



Four municipalities have vehicle impoundment and seizure ordinances. For example, an individual driving through Aurora with a BB gun is subject to having his vehicle impounded. In Carol Stream individuals are prohibited from transporting a gun that is enclosed in a case, while state law requires that guns be enclosed in a case!


Nineteen municipalities regulate or prohibit sales between private citizens, or retail dealers and private citizens. This is in spite of the fact that the state already prohibits sales to individuals who do not possess FOID cards, and the fact that all sales are already subject to a three-day waiting period.


Thirteen municipalities are known to place additional prohibitions or restrictions on private ownership of firearms beyond what the state imposes. These prohibitions include not only pistols and revolvers, but rifles, shotguns, and ammunition.


Fourteen municipalities have owner licensing and registration requirements. Some of these are direct licensing systems; others are indirect registration systems where the police are able to acquire records of retail firearm dealers.


Three municipalities provide exemptions from the Gunrunning (720 ILCS 5/24-31) and Firearm Owner’s Identification Act (430 ILCS 65/3). The exemptions from these laws allow criminals or their surrogates to voluntarily surrender guns to police without identifying themselves. Chicago has passed one of these ordinances in spite of the fact that Chicago has sued the ATF to get trace information for guns used in crimes!


There are at least nine municipalities that are in violation of Illinois State Public Act 92?0238, which requires that they submit their local ordinances to the Illinois State Police. A citizen can download all of the ordinances that are published on their web site, try to conform to their requirements, and yet violate an ordinance simply because a municipality never submitted their ordinances in to the state police. Other municipalities have submitted incomplete sets of ordinances with missing pages.

Do these ordinances improve the safety and welfare of Illinois residents? It is interesting to note that municipalities with the most complex ordinances generally do not have prohibitions against brandishing or discharge of firearms within city limits. This would suggest that the focus of these ordinances are not on safety, but to simply discourage firearm ownership based on a belief that firearms cause a degradation of moral character. This is perfectly illustrated by the actions of the Trustees of the Village of Calumet Park, who wrote the following statement in Ordinance No. 82-382:



Whereas, the unlawful and injurious employment of firearms is not confined solely to immature persons, incompetent persons, or individuals of previously demonstrated bad moral character and repute but often are unlawfully and injuriously employed by mature persons who are competent and of previously good moral character and repute...

If you believe that ownership of firearms does not cause a moral degradation of character, and that Illinois should join Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin in having uniform statewide firearm laws, please contact your local representative and ask him to support HB3631 by signing on as a co-sponsor. This bill, Local Government Firearm Regulation Preemption Act, would strip municipalities of the license to pass these misguided laws that do not reduce crime, but simply hurt honest firearm owners. The sponsor of this bill is Republican Representative Rich Brauer, and his telephone number is (217) 782-0053.

[dorvinion]

Druid, on Nov 1 2005, 11:30 AM, said:

I wonder how this bill would affect the Orland Park BB Gun transportation ban, if at all.

If you can transport in a vehicle you'll shoot your eye out!



Ok, thats just unbelievable. I'd have to check but I don't think ILCS considers pnuematic or spring powered "guns" as deadly weapons.

[Ol'Coach]

My Red Ryder cost me $4.95 from Monkey Wards some 62 yrs ago!!  Took me 3 mos to save enough to order it.  Would you believe it got put on back order?

Talk about agony!  I still feel the pain!

[GlockShooter]

dorvinion, on Nov 1 2005, 12:36 PM, said:

Druid, on Nov 1 2005, 11:30 AM, said:

I wonder how this bill would affect the Orland Park BB Gun transportation ban, if at all.

If you can transport in a vehicle you'll shoot your eye out!



Ok, thats just unbelievable. I'd have to check but I don't think ILCS considers pnuematic or spring powered "guns" as deadly weapons.

As far as the state is concerned, anything that fires a projectile faster than 800 fps is considered a firearm, so most of your $30-$50 BB guns are not included, but many spring guns are.  I found this out the hard way when I had to present my FOID to buy a 1000 fps pellet gun.

[Ocellairs]

GlockShooter, on Nov 1 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

dorvinion, on Nov 1 2005, 12:36 PM, said:

Druid, on Nov 1 2005, 11:30 AM, said:

I wonder how this bill would affect the Orland Park BB Gun transportation ban, if at all.

If you can transport in a vehicle you'll shoot your eye out!



Ok, thats just unbelievable. I'd have to check but I don't think ILCS considers pnuematic or spring powered "guns" as deadly weapons.

As far as the state is concerned, anything that fires a projectile faster than 800 fps is considered a firearm, so most of your $30-$50 BB guns are not included, but many spring guns are.  I found this out the hard way when I had to present my FOID to buy a 1000 fps pellet gun.

...uh, correction  700 fps!

[GlockShooter]

Yikes, it's worse than I thought!

Thanks for the correction, Oc.

[Ocellairs]

I thought of this yesterday, but just got around to posting it.

With SB 2104 being important to CCW down the road, there is another side of this too;
The Sparta Shooting Facility. Although it probably wouldn't happen, as the facility is really in pro-gun control territory. Yet all towns that one would need to pass though to get to the facility could enact laws such as those in place around Chicago, which in an effect would close the facility down.

You would think Carbondale, being in the same territory, gun friendly wouldn’t have the law that they do. The college though is known for some rough misbehaving kids….especially when it comes to drinking. It has a rather nasty reputation on that end.

[Ol'Coach]

Carbondale is a "top-rated" party school!!  But the gun ban came about basically as a result of a couple of years of really wild Halloween party pranks, if you want to call them pranks!  Cars got turned over and burned, etc., pretty bad stuff.  

I'm not sure how a gun ban was supposed to help the situation, but it's my understanding that's what precipitated the idea.

[c-rock]

I called today.   (!)

[Ocellairs]

Ol'Coach, on Nov 3 2005, 10:03 AM, said:

Carbondale is a "top-rated" party school!!  But the gun ban came about basically as a result of a couple of years of really wild Halloween party pranks, if you want to call them pranks!  Cars got turned over and burned, etc., pretty bad stuff. 

I'm not sure how a gun ban was supposed to help the situation, but it's my understanding that's what precipitated the idea.

I suspect that the "party" crowd was the reason behing the ban, regardless of what type of "party" took place.

[45superman]

Ocellairs, on Nov 3 2005, 09:10 AM, said:

Ol'Coach, on Nov 3 2005, 10:03 AM, said:

Carbondale is a "top-rated" party school!!  But the gun ban came about basically as a result of a couple of years of really wild Halloween party pranks, if you want to call them pranks!  Cars got turned over and burned, etc., pretty bad stuff. 

I'm not sure how a gun ban was supposed to help the situation, but it's my understanding that's what precipitated the idea.

I suspect that the "party" crowd was the reason behing the ban, regardless of what type of "party" took place.

It's all fun and games until someone loses their gun rights   .

[Ocellairs]

45superman, on Nov 3 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

Ocellairs, on Nov 3 2005, 09:10 AM, said:

Ol'Coach, on Nov 3 2005, 10:03 AM, said:

Carbondale is a "top-rated" party school!!  But the gun ban came about basically as a result of a couple of years of really wild Halloween party pranks, if you want to call them pranks!  Cars got turned over and burned, etc., pretty bad stuff. 

I'm not sure how a gun ban was supposed to help the situation, but it's my understanding that's what precipitated the idea.

I suspect that the "party" crowd was the reason behing the ban, regardless of what type of "party" took place.

It's all fun and games until someone loses their gun rights   .

There's not many down in that crowd of party kids that give a hoot about keeping their rights.

[SAK]

It seems to be the same way with most of the people from my generation.  Too many I talk to say things like "I don't give a @#%" etc.  I guess they're lucky that people like us that DO care are still around.  

[SmershAgent]

SAK, on Nov 3 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

It seems to be the same way with most of the people from my generation.  Too many I talk to say things like "I don't give a @#%" etc.  I guess they're lucky that people like us that DO care are still around.  

My experiences have been similar. Every once in a while, though, I get the chance to speak with an apathetic/uninformed person who is actually willing to take the issue seriously and is receptive to my arguments.

[Ocellairs]

Something from the Concealed Carry brog.

<snip>

Supporters of the governor's veto argue that local laws are needed to combat a loophole that allows gun owners to transport weapons in fanny packs. Under state law, an unloaded weapon can legally be transported if it is in a case.

"Many people have found that the definition of a case can be a fanny pack," said Laimutis "Limey" Nargelenas of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. "They've now developed them so there's two compartments, one for the ammunition, one for the unloaded weapons. You can pull that weapon out, jam (in) the magazine, and you are ready to go in a couple of seconds."

They still don't get it. Please show me where in the law the ammunition has to be separate. It says unloaded. No stipulation to the location of the ammo. Again I ask, if this is such a terrible problem, where is all the blood in the streets? These power hungry people are pathetic.

Some communities have passed ordinances against carrying guns in fanny packs because efforts to pass a state law have failed, he said.

In Springfield, officers will arrest anyone carrying a gun in a fanny pack, according to Springfield Police Department spokesman Sgt. Kevin Keen, because the city does not consider it a legal method of transporting a weapon. Keen said he is not aware of any such arrests.

<snip>

..well there you have it folks...this wasn't about transportion...it was what the anti's considered a CCW law.

Watch now, there will be bills introduced in the spring to redefine a carrying case!

[SAK]

If that happens, we will really need to mobilize.  We'll need to get 100s of people from all over down in Springfield.  This isn't an option, this is what we will HAVE to do if the introduce such a bill!