Bills That Will Become Law

[Gary]

I would like to make a suggestion and from experience I have found that sometimes a suggestion is interpreted as a complaint so I want to say quite clearly I am not complaining but trying to help make the site even better than it already is. In fact, if there is anything that I can do to help in other ways please contact me to discuss the matter with me keeping in mind that although willing to do just about anything for the cause I do often require a lead time.

 

Okay, with that said, I think it would be a benefit to everyone but particularly to people who do not really want to post anytbing or are not into becomeing members of sites of any kind but who are still supporters and would like to know what is going on in the world of gun laws. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy and informative to keep a locked thread that would list bills that either had recently become law or that will become law at a time foreseeable.

 

For instance, I am still not sure what the status of the "billy" law is. I have read the statute and it appears to be to be no different than it has been for years but I am almost sure that there was a change made as of January 1st this year. With all of the changes in law listed somewhere, a missing change could be caught by one of the other members of Illinois Carry. For instance, abolt seemed to be unaware of the the mandatory sentencing for possession of a firearm without a FOID card. The confusion may have been in the way I first stated the magnitude of the law but even though all of us are aware and deligent in maintaining our FOID card, this law could easily be used to trap an innocent spouse who normally has no contact with firearms but might find that a firearm used by the other spouse is actually in her possession because she is the only one home or the only one in the vehicle at the time. Now, admittedly there is probably no jury in the world that would convict in this type of case, I know that there are some states attorneys that would use this law to get a plea bargain just because of the severity of the wrong outcome and the legal costs involved in maintaining a defense. But more than that, I have run into several people who have guns and do not have FOID's because they don't hunt and never remove the gun from their house. In their minds, they don't need one. Trust me, when I run into someone like that I explain the facts of life to them.

I know why the law was proposed and passed. Gang members don't ever have FOID cards. Yep. But if they are not being arrested on that violation now, what makes us think they will be convicted of that in the future? I know that the FOID card violaton is often just dropped to get the assault charge with a plea, but it still seems like this is just another way to trap the good guys. We already have plenty of laws that should be sufficient to after the people who are committing the crimes. (How I do ramble on! Sorry!) Anyway, just a suggestion!

[Bud]

The law was passed as a placebo nfor those to ignornat of what is really happening in Illinois. This way Quinn et al can get there few seconds on TV doing "something about the violence".

 

The Chicago Police Department is unable to locate any single arrest and conviction for their former no gun ordinance.

 

Not one arrest and conviction in 28 years. Think about that. Daley and his aldermen spent MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars defending a law that was never once enforced

[Sigma]

bUDMAN DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCE FOR THAT. tHAT WOULD BE GOOD INFORMATION i COULD USE.

[Gary]

That there was absolutely zero arrests seems to be hard to understand, but on the other hand if that stat is, indeed, factual that simply means that the people who were caught with firearms in the city were charged with other crimes such as UUW because they probably didn't want to get a FOID card because that might have "flagged" them as a gun owner in a city that did not allow guns. More than likely, though, those caught with guns were charged with the crime that they committed with the gun such as murder or assault rather than the city ordinance. Regardless of the reason, even if the number of arrests were even near zero, it just proves that the ordinance was ineffective and unnecessary. They can not claim that the ordinance kept guns out of the city and that was why there were no arrests because you can't have as many felonies committed with the use of guns if there were no guns. Their logic is circular!