[hotpig27]

Tvandermyde

Since the IL Hand gun Dealer License act looks like a shoe in I have a question.

How long do you think I have to liquidate my hand gun inventory? I will keep selling long guns but I'm not going to jump through hoops for hand guns. There is no profit in them to make it worth while.

[Tvandermyde]

what are you talking about?

[hotpig27]

Tvandermyde, on 05 February 2010 - 08:37 AM, said:

what are you talking about?

http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=76&GA=96


Short Description: HANDGUN DEALER LICENSING ACT

House Sponsors
Rep. Deborah L. Graham - Elizabeth Coulson - Harry Osterman - William D. Burns - William Davis, Marlow H. Colvin, André M. Thapedi, Cynthia Soto, Edward J. Acevedo, Elizabeth Hernandez, Luis Arroyo, Maria Antonia Berrios, John D'Amico, Sara Feigenholtz, LaShawn K. Ford, Esther Golar, Deborah Mell, Susana A. Mendoza, Mark L. Walker, Greg Harris, Joseph M. Lyons, Barbara Flynn Currie, Daniel J. Burke, Kathleen A. Ryg and Robert Rita

Last Action
Date Chamber Action
2/3/2010 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
New Act


Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Handgun Dealer Licensing Act. Provides for the regulation of handgun dealers through licensure by the Department of State Police. Provides that no person may sell or otherwise transfer, expose for sale or transfer, or have in his or her possession with the intent to sell or transfer, any concealable firearm without being licensed under the Act. Provides, however, that the prohibition does not apply to a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of concealable firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or as a hobby, or who sells all or part of his or her personal collection of firearms. Sets forth provisions concerning application, fees, duration of licensure, license retention requirements, submissions to the Department, penalties, revocation, and suspension. Grants rulemaking authority to the Department and provides that for the purpose of determining compliance with the Act, the Act may be enforced by any municipality in which a licensee is located or, if a licensee is not located in a municipality, by the county in which a licensee is located.

Actions
Date Chamber Action
1/13/2009 House Prefiled with Clerk by Rep. Deborah L. Graham
1/14/2009 House First Reading
1/14/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee
2/4/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. William D. Burns
2/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. William Davis
2/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Marlow H. Colvin
2/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. André M. Thapedi
2/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Cynthia Soto
3/3/2009 House Assigned to Executive Committee
3/5/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Edward J. Acevedo
3/5/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez
3/11/2009 House Do Pass / Short Debate Executive Committee; 006-004-000
3/11/2009 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Second Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. William Davis
3/17/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. William Davis
3/17/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Coulson
3/17/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Harry Osterman
3/17/2009 House Chief Co-Sponsor Changed to Rep. William Davis
3/17/2009 House Chief Co-Sponsor Changed to Rep. Elizabeth Coulson
3/17/2009 House Chief Co-Sponsor Changed to Rep. Elizabeth Coulson
3/17/2009 House Chief Co-Sponsor Changed to Rep. Harry Osterman
3/17/2009 House Chief Co-Sponsor Changed to Rep. William Davis
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Luis Arroyo
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Maria Antonia Berrios
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. John D'Amico
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Sara Feigenholtz
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. LaShawn K. Ford
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Esther Golar
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Deborah Mell
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Susana A. Mendoza
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Mark L. Walker
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Greg Harris
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Joseph M. Lyons
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Daniel J. Burke
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Kathleen A. Ryg
3/18/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Robert Rita
4/3/2009 House Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
2/3/2010 House Approved for Consideration Rules Committee; 005-000-000
2/3/2010 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate

Back To Top



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Legislation & Laws | House | Senate | My Legislation | Disclaimers | Email

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the
Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706
217-782-3944 217-782-2050 (TTY)

[Tvandermyde]

Cute, they just did that.

That is why i say nothing is ever dead. It's like a movie with zombies.

We have killed this bill each time is has come up.

Time to get the phones cranked up.

I am reasonably sure we will kill this one again.

[Bill Matio]

Who writes these bills?

Reading the full text, they make reference to "handgun" only a few times, the rest of the time they use the words "concealable firearms" and they even use the words "concealable firearms ammunition".

Heck, I can take any of my rifles or shotguns and make them "concealable" by holding them under a topcoat.

[Buzzard]

Is this bill number still HB0180? I called my rep - talked to his secretary.
I told her this is a bill from last year, back from rules and called for a third reading.

I seriously doubt Rep. Jim Sacia would vote for it.

[Lou]

This is just a bad bill all around. I am very surprised that this bill was resurrected after almost a year languishing in the graveyard of bad legislation. I cannot help but think that this is an attempt to ram anti-gun bills through in anticipation of a favorable Supreme Court ruling in the McDonald case dismantling the failed Chicago handgun ban.

The bill also creates a database on all "concealable handguns" sold.

[Buzzard]

Lou, on 05 February 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

This is just a bad bill all around. I am very surprised that this bill was resurrected after almost a year languishing in the graveyard of bad legislation. I cannot help but think that this is an attempt to ram anti-gun bills through in anticipation of a favorable Supreme Court ruling in the McDonald case dismantling the failed Chicago handgun ban.

The bill also creates a database on all "concealable handguns" sold.

Madigan's Shenanigans

[moparcardave]

I will keep calling and emailing on this. I can't wait to get Illinois off my residency however even then I will keep on callling and writing. Stocks down, housing down and the wife has even talked about going back in the military as an officer this time. Just getting really tired of a state that won't enforce the laws, instead attacks legal citizens and businesses

[Thirdpower]

I've called my Rep (Chapin Rose), E-mailed my local FFL, posted it on Facebook and my blog.

[abolt243]

hotpig27, on 05 February 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:

Tvandermyde

Since the IL Hand gun Dealer License act looks like a shoe in I have a question.

How long do you think I have to liquidate my hand gun inventory? I will keep selling long guns but I'm not going to jump through hoops for hand guns. There is no profit in them to make it worth while.

It's not a shoe-in. No session until next Tues, let's Todd do his magic and let's us contact those reps that we need to remind. Also, even it if does pass the House, it still has to get through the Senate. Get on the horn to your rep and to any other dealers that you know to make calls. I'm going to contact my dealers and let them know about it.

What makes you think it's a done deal??

AB

[Tvandermyde]

I'm gonna make a post in a new thread.

But guys, you do your part and make the calls. I'll do my part and work the capitol. If it gets hairy, I'll let you know and Have more to say wednesday night when we get together.

I've beat this bill at least 4 times by my count.

I'm looking for my old position paper on it so you guy can have some talking points. Found it. Attached.

Attached File(s)

•  HB180pp1.pdf (1.57MB)
  Number of downloads: 65

[Lou]

Thirdpower, on 05 February 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

I've called my Rep (Chapin Rose), E-mailed my local FFL, posted it on Facebook and my blog.

I faxed yesterday my rep {Patti Bellock} and asked her to oppose this one.

[Buzzard]

I called my rep., Jim Sacia and I called the local gun shop and told them to read my email which explains the urgency and has Todd's NRA legislative alert attached. Will try to make as many contacts as possible before tuesday.

[Buzzard]

Last Action

Now excuse me for asking, but how did this happen procedurally?

================================================================

Actions
Date Chamber Action
1/13/2009 House Prefiled with Clerk by Rep. Deborah L. Graham
1/14/2009 House First Reading
1/14/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee
3/3/2009 House Assigned to Executive Committee
3/11/2009 House Do Pass / Short Debate Executive Committee; 006-004-000
3/11/2009 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Second Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate
4/3/2009 House Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
2/3/2010 House Approved for Consideration Rules Committee; 005-000-000
2/3/2010 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate

===============================================================================================


Was it the House approved for consideration action on the 3rd of Feb. that allowed a SECOND third reading?
What in God's name would possess the House to allow the Chicago Dems a do-over on a gun bill?

[abolt243]

Buzzard, on 06 February 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Last Action

Now excuse me for asking, but how did this happen procedurally?

================================================================

Actions
Date Chamber Action
1/13/2009 House Prefiled with Clerk by Rep. Deborah L. Graham
1/14/2009 House First Reading
1/14/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee
3/3/2009 House Assigned to Executive Committee
3/11/2009 House Do Pass / Short Debate Executive Committee; 006-004-000
3/11/2009 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Second Reading - Short Debate
3/17/2009 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate
4/3/2009 House Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
2/3/2010 House Approved for Consideration Rules Committee; 005-000-000
2/3/2010 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading - Short Debate

===============================================================================================


Was it the House approved for consideration action on the 3rd of Feb. that allowed a SECOND third reading?
What in God's name would possess the House to allow the Chicago Dems a do-over on a gun bill?

I'm guessing that Rules decided that they could sneak it into line for third reading. It did attain 3rd reading status last spring, so I assume that they can put it back there if they want to. Bottom line, Barbara Flynn Currie is the chair of that committee and 3 out of 5 are Dems. She will do as she's told. They must have had the hearing on it last Wed, or maybe they don'[t even have to have an advertised meeting to re-instate a bill. Todd can fill us in on procedure. You can be they were trying to push it through without anyone seeing it. Wonder if the three Dems met in a Chicago office, declared a quorum and passed a bunch of stuff. Wouldn't put it past them.

[Tvandermyde]

Buzz --

rules meets with a list of bills. they are passed out on ruotine becuase it's 3 dems and 2 repubs. the repubs can't stop anything and the dems are all leadership and do what the speaker places on the list.

My bet is Grahm/Chicago made a request to have the bill kicked back out ot the floor instead of trying to file a new bill. It shortens the process. After the bill passage deadline, things are automaticly referred back to the rules committee as a holding pen to not clutter up the calender. the bill was read a first time, went to committee passed out, placed on second reading, had it't title read a second time and then moved to third reading.

When they did not move the bill last session it was kicked back to rules. Now they kicked it back out. It's doable. it's winthin the rules.

It is why I say this is like zombies where they never really die.

My guess is that the Osterman bill took all the air out of th fight last session. They spent so much time tryign to pass that bill that it ate up a lot of goodwill and poltical capital. So now they want another bite at the apple over another one of the mayors pet bills.

I also think they feel like they are cornered. About to loose the McDonald case, I think they are trygin to grasp at anything they can in the short term becuase stuff will hit the fan after McDonald. I think we'll pick up 3-6 votes in the house just because -- on a lot of issues.

Normally, the speaker tries to tamp down gun bills in the second half of session. Looks like this year will be a bit different. But i don't kow how the senate is going to react. They may take a wait and see approach.

[Buzzard]

Thanks for the explanation.

[Paul Kirsey]

Just emailed my state rep Paul Froelich. Hopefully we'll get some help there.

[Don Gwinn]

Just called the Heir to the Hannig Throne and let her know how to vote. I think she got some new staff who don't ask where the caller is from. She should be reliably pro-gun, though, as her husband was.

[sctman800]

I just got off the phone after calling Bill Black's office, super cool, he answered the phone himself. There was never any doubt in my mind about how he would vote but I allways like to give thanks every now and then. We had a nice talk, he mentioned the people that want to take everyones guns away are the same people that have armed guards 24/7. Also, that Mayor Daley is scared about McDonald vs. Chicago.
I also asked about Chad Hayes and his feelings on 2A, Bill said if Chad wasn't pro gun owner he would have run again. He is also pro carry so it looks like we have a good man to elect.
Just for good measure I also called my Senator's office and asked that if the HB180 gets through the house He should oppose anything similar. Jim.

[Smittyp83]

email sent to Tim Schmitz!

[Lou]

sctman800, on 08 February 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

I just got off the phone after calling Bill Black's office, super cool, he answered the phone himself. There was never any doubt in my mind about how he would vote but I allways like to give thanks every now and then. We had a nice talk, he mentioned the people that want to take everyones guns away are the same people that have armed guards 24/7. Also, that Mayor Daley is scared about McDonald vs. Chicago.
I also asked about Chad Hayes and his feelings on 2A, Bill said if Chad wasn't pro gun owner he would have run again. He is also pro carry so it looks like we have a good man to elect.
Just for good measure I also called my Senator's office and asked that if the HB180 gets through the house He should oppose anything similar. Jim.

One of the things I don't understand is that HB180 passed out of the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote which means Rep Black voted for it in committee? He is one of 2 Republicans on the committee. Am I on the wring track here?

[Drylok]

Lou, on 08 February 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

sctman800, on 08 February 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

I just got off the phone after calling Bill Black's office, super cool, he answered the phone himself. There was never any doubt in my mind about how he would vote but I allways like to give thanks every now and then. We had a nice talk, he mentioned the people that want to take everyones guns away are the same people that have armed guards 24/7. Also, that Mayor Daley is scared about McDonald vs. Chicago.
I also asked about Chad Hayes and his feelings on 2A, Bill said if Chad wasn't pro gun owner he would have run again. He is also pro carry so it looks like we have a good man to elect.
Just for good measure I also called my Senator's office and asked that if the HB180 gets through the house He should oppose anything similar. Jim.

One of the things I don't understand is that HB180 passed out of the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote which means Rep Black voted for it in committee? He is one of 2 Republicans on the committee. Am I on the wring track here?

Not trying to accuse you of being misinformed Lou, but that can't be right. I see what you mean though, but we must be missing something. No way he would have voted for this. I think I'll give him a shout. He's not in my district but his secretary and I have mutual friends and she's really nice, so I'm sure she will help.

[Lou]

Quote

Lou:One of the things I don't understand is that HB180 passed out of the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote which means Rep Black voted for it in committee? He is one of 2 Republicans on the committee. Am I on the wring track here?

Drylock: Not trying to accuse you of being misinformed Lou, but that can't be right. I see what you mean though, but we must be missing something. No way he would have voted for this. I think I'll give him a shout. He's not in my district but his secretary and I have mutual friends and she's really nice, so I'm sure she will help.

I know Rep. Black has been a consistent friend of the 2A. Now, being voted out of committee IIRC means it goes out to the floor for discussion. It is not necessarily a vote for the bill itself. Maybe this is a plan to kill the bill forever? Heck I just don't know - there are too many things that go on in Springfield that are beyond my pay grade.

[Drylok]

Lou, on 08 February 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Quote

Lou:One of the things I don't understand is that HB180 passed out of the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote which means Rep Black voted for it in committee? He is one of 2 Republicans on the committee. Am I on the wring track here?

Drylock: Not trying to accuse you of being misinformed Lou, but that can't be right. I see what you mean though, but we must be missing something. No way he would have voted for this. I think I'll give him a shout. He's not in my district but his secretary and I have mutual friends and she's really nice, so I'm sure she will help.

I know Rep. Black has been a consistent friend of the 2A. Now, being voted out of committee IIRC means it goes out to the floor for discussion. It is not necessarily a vote for the bill itself. Maybe this is a plan to kill the bill forever? Heck I just don't know - there are too many things that go on in Springfield that are beyond my pay grade.

Yes sir, I understand that, and I don't know that much about the stuff that goes on in that damn place but I know enough to know it may be a plan of attack as you stated here. I'll let ya know what his sec says. Hang on

[Buzzard]

Drylok, on 08 February 2010 - 01:39 PM, said:

Lou, on 08 February 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

sctman800, on 08 February 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

I just got off the phone after calling Bill Black's office, super cool, he answered the phone himself. There was never any doubt in my mind about how he would vote but I allways like to give thanks every now and then. We had a nice talk, he mentioned the people that want to take everyones guns away are the same people that have armed guards 24/7. Also, that Mayor Daley is scared about McDonald vs. Chicago.
I also asked about Chad Hayes and his feelings on 2A, Bill said if Chad wasn't pro gun owner he would have run again. He is also pro carry so it looks like we have a good man to elect.
Just for good measure I also called my Senator's office and asked that if the HB180 gets through the house He should oppose anything similar. Jim.

One of the things I don't understand is that HB180 passed out of the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote which means Rep Black voted for it in committee? He is one of 2 Republicans on the committee. Am I on the wring track here?

Not trying to accuse you of being misinformed Lou, but that can't be right. I see what you mean though, but we must be missing something. No way he would have voted for this. I think I'll give him a shout. He's not in my district but his secretary and I have mutual friends and she's really nice, so I'm sure she will help.

Not sure whats up. Here's the rules committee:

Chairperson : Barbara Flynn Currie D
Republican Spokesperson : William B. Black R
Member: Lou Lang D
Member: Timothy L. Schmitz R
Member: Arthur L. Turner D

It's stacked with a dem majority. Only three votes are needed to pass it out of committee. So something else is at work here.

[Drylok]

lol She's such a nice lady. First thing she said was "I've had a million phone calls on this bill" I said ya I'm sure you have. She says she's very familiar with the bill itself but not real knowledgable about the process and some of the things that can happen as a bill makes its way through the loops.
However I think what it amounts to Lou is in the rules committee, that's just what it is. It doesn't have anything to do with whether they support it or not it's just a legal beagal thing to allow it to go to the floor for discusion. But she says she's not exactly sure on that, but rest assured he will be voting NO on the floor.
Maybe Todd can explain it, I have no idea if my little gestimation is accurate or not.
I think we're getting a little worked up about a not so big deal, considering the committee is lopsided 3-2 D-R so his no vote would have been moot point anyway.

[abolt243]

Drylok, on 08 February 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

lol She's such a nice lady. First thing she said was "I've had a million phone calls on this bill" I said ya I'm sure you have. She says she's very familiar with the bill itself but not real knowledgable about the process and some of the things that can happen as a bill makes its way through the loops.
However I think what it amounts to Lou is in the rules committee, that's just what it is. It doesn't have anything to do with whether they support it or not it's just a legal beagal thing to allow it to go to the floor for discusion. But she says she's not exactly sure on that, but rest assured he will be voting NO on the floor.
Maybe Todd can explain it, I have no idea if my little gestimation is accurate or not.
I think we're getting a little worked up about a not so big deal, considering the committee is lopsided 3-2 D-R so his no vote would have been moot point anyway.

I think you're right on. Black figured that it was gonna pass anyway, get it to the floor and kill it there. As we've had explained before, sometimes it's best to throw a bone, when you're sure the dog is already out anyway!!

BTW, when there is a Dem majority in the House, you can bet that every committee will have a Dem majority.

UAB

[Drylok]

Mr. Black just returned my call. Turns out he didn't vote for it at all in committe as he was not present that day and was substituted by a Rep Bost. We talked for a bit about the other key bills and of course he'll be doing his part. He's a good ole boy.
He says though that yes, sometimes the best thing is to push it to the floor so you can just kill it and be done with it.