Jump to content


Photo

Quick Reference List: Gun Bills in 2011/2012 session


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
167 replies to this topic

#151 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,480 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:08 AM

I figured it must be
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#152 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,549 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:13 AM

The bill does not attack ďthe gunĒ per se. It attacks conduct. As a felon, they are prohibited from possessing a firearm. So the bill is directed at those who donít and wonít follow the rules.



We have always said that 80% of the crimes are committed by a small percentage of people who are recidivists. This is aimed at them by removing the possibility of probation i.e. a conviction with no time served.



Itís not anti-gun it is about changing behavior and letting people know that there is no revolving door justice system for continued felon in possession violations.



Since I donít represent felons, not a problem.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#153 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,481 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:36 AM

Amendment #1 was just filed on HB148.......


And it says:

AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 148 on page 16, by
3 inserting immediately below line 14 the following:
4 "(xiv) Any public library without the authorization or
5 approval by the governing entity of the library."


Not too big of a give-back.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#154 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,221 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:02 AM

I wonder if that would require unanimous consent of the library board, a simple majority, or approval of just one board member.

I am not complaining about this provsion - just curious as to how approval would ever be realized in practice.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#155 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:10 AM

Can somebody who's had such discussions with the opposition provide any insight into their reasoning regarding gun-free zones (based on your discussions with them; not speculations or "omg, the crazy left-wing..blahblah" rants)?

I'm truly curious what the motivations are for disarming people in places like libraries, or elsewhere where no other security and screening takes place. What, in their argument, makes a library any different from any other public location?
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#156 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,943 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:18 AM

Can somebody who's had such discussions with the opposition provide any insight into their reasoning regarding gun-free zones (based on your discussions with them; not speculations or "omg, the crazy left-wing..blahblah" rants)?

I'm truly curious what the motivations are for disarming people in places like libraries, or elsewhere where no other security and screening takes place. What, in their argument, makes a library any different from any other public location?


public library is owned by the local city... so my guess (and its just a guess) is it is a government building like any other that we cant carry in (in 95% of cases we cant)...
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#157 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:34 AM

public library is owned by the local city... so my guess (and its just a guess) is it is a government building like any other that we cant carry in (in 95% of cases we cant)...


So let me expand my question even further. :thinking:

What is the argument against carrying in an un-secured government building?

This seems especially ridiculous since entering a government building is typically unavoidable for citizens. You can't "take your business elsewhere", like you could if a private property store or restaurant was a rights-free zone.

Edit: My suspicion is that at some point in the past, they allowed government buildings somewhere to be rights-free zones. Anti-rights people elsewhere took that as a precedent and did it not for particular stated reasons, but rather because it was one more limitation on a right they want to erode. As such, any arguments they have are purely after-thought justifications rather than reasons for limiting carry.

But this is just speculation. I'm curious if anyone involved in these kinds of negotiations can provide more real insight.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#158 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,943 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:37 AM

So let me expand my question even further. :thinking:

What is the argument against carrying in an un-secured government building?

This seems especially ridiculous since entering a government building is typically unavoidable for citizens. You can't "take your business elsewhere", like you could if a private-property store or restaurant was a rights-free zone.

that is the real question now... oh i agree 100%
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#159 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,480 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:22 PM

Since this bill is pre-empt and libraries are owned by the tax payers of the city, then shouldn't they be prohibited from opting out inside libraries?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#160 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,793 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:56 PM

You must remember - this is the government, it doesn't have to make sense. :thinking:

#161 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:59 PM

You must remember - this is the government, it doesn't have to make sense. :thinking:


I know you're probably just making a joke here... But keep in mind this amendment was pushed by a particular person, or group of people. Somebody, a thinking reasoning person, made an argument to the bill's authors and sponsors and asked them to outlaw carrying firearms in libraries.

I'm looking to hear that argument.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#162 Will S.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 11

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:08 PM

Since this bill is pre-empt and libraries are owned by the tax payers of the city, then shouldn't they be prohibited from opting out inside libraries?



Government buildings are owned by the taxpayers as well so I don't think that line of thinking is going to hold up.

#163 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,208 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:38 PM

If you want to know where this came from, Google "guns, library, Michigan" and read the stories. Some "activists" are pushing the envelope there and are causing reverbrations all over the country, even here in little old IL where we can't carry anyway. Just another example of the situation where something may be "legal, moral and within your rights to do, but it's not very smart to do it at this time."

As to the restricted places. I don't agree either. But at this time in the arena of "discrete carry", it seems to be commonly accepted that there are places that are "too sensitive" to allow carry of firearms. Courthouses, jails, other federal buildings (fed law). That gets translated as "and tax supported entity" and pretty soon you've got a list a mile long.

While I don't agree with the library thing, at least there is an "opt out" for individual libraries. I assume that "governing entity" would be the board if that's who makes the ultimate decisions for the library. Many are supported by cities or counties or townships and therefore controlled by those boards. The way to do that would be to entreat your board to allow carry by licensed persons and not have to give out individual permission.

Remember, this amendment was just filed on the current version of the bill. I can tell you, that's not the final version, so amendment 2 would probably negate amendment 1. This thing is very fluid right now. Expect more changes.

But the situation overall is looking good.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#164 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:50 PM

Thanks for the insight. :) Like I said... this was all curiosity about the history, and reasoning.
And to be perfectly clear, I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or crying about this amendment (or other restrictions on carry).
I understand the practical/political need to make concessions.

But the situation overall is looking good.


I agree 100% :)
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#165 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,221 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 31 October 2011 - 11:21 AM

New bills to add to the list:



HB3794 - Concelaed Carry Firearms filed 10/5/2011.

Haven't read the whole thing - its a shall issue bill with the County Sherrifs being the issuing authority, but makes carry in each county contingent upon approval of the county board.


HB3796 - Firearm Owners ID Duration filed 10/5/2011.

Would make the FOID card valid for the life of the holder.


HB3809 - Gangs No Firearm filed 10/5/2011.

A rehash of HB3601


HB3845 - Unwanted Firearms filed 10/19/2011.

Mandates that municipalities establish a turn in program under which unwanted firearms can be surrendered to the local police department.

Just another feel good bill that will do nothing to reduce crime as only the guns at the backs of underwear drawers will be turned in. Could make some sense, though, if the guns could be sold to quailified individuals and the money used to enhance the local police department.




Edited to clarify HB3794

Edited by mauserme, 31 October 2011 - 11:22 AM.

.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#166 pistolchic

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 12

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:19 PM

I can see it now with this one. Sheriff will have too much say over who gets permit or not. This one could be full of corruption.

HB 0112 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (defensive firearm carry, administered by sheriff's department)
[/color]


This is the way it's done in other state's, and it works. The local Sheriff's dept. is responsible for holding the training course, running extensive background checks, taking fees, and issuing Conceal/Carry permits to it's residents. Honestly, I don't know why IL hasn't started this before now and viewed it as an opportunity for revenue. :cool:

#167 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:27 PM


I can see it now with this one. Sheriff will have too much say over who gets permit or not. This one could be full of corruption.

HB 0112 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (defensive firearm carry, administered by sheriff's department)
[/color]


This is the way it's done in other state's, and it works. The local Sheriff's dept. is responsible for holding the training course, running extensive background checks, taking fees, and issuing Conceal/Carry permits to it's residents. Honestly, I don't know why IL hasn't started this before now and viewed it as an opportunity for revenue. ;)

emphasis added

Maybe I'm missing your point... but no, it doesn't work. Just ask the CCW permit holders in NY, CA, HI... oh wait, there aren't any! At least not outside of the castle walls of the kings and lords. :cool:
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#168 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,221 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:35 PM

Welcome to the forum pistolchic.

If I remember correctly, HB112 is a shall issue bill which would avoid the California type probelms under a may issue system. I haven't done a line by line campaarison of this bill and HB148 (not recently, anyway) but I think the biggest difference might be in defining which agency, sheriff or state police, is the issuing agency. I don't hink that would be a huge sticking point
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis