167 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

HB0264 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Denies home rule powers relating to permits and licenses for firearms. Effective immediately.

HB0265
-  CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT
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 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.

[abolt243]

Hatchet, on 24 January 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

any one have any info on these 2 reps?

Rep. Daniel V. Beiser  111th District
Rep. Dan Reitz  116th District

they have been added as sponsors on the HB0148 conceal carry bill... that puts 3 Dems on that bill... which could be good.

i cant get there voting record to show up... i see they sponsored a CC bill last year also...

You can look them up on ILGA to see their district affiliation.  They have always been 2A friendly in the past and have sponsored several carry bills.  Not sure where you're trying to see a voting record.  Perhaps nothing shows because there have been no votes taken in the 97th Gen Assem yet??  

AB

[45superman]

Good work, Mstrat--got 'em listed.

Thanks.

[mikew]

If you read the armored car one carefully, it would neuter "Joe's Armored Car Emporium", but foster  "Big Bank Inc, Armored Car Division".

ie. Go Wells Fargo, Go Away Illinois Armored, or something like that.

[Black Flag]

Makes you wonder what the motivation is for the Representative in pushing the Armored Car bill...

A grudge against armored cars not affiliated with a bank?
A (gasp) payoff campaign contribution from a big bank?

[Tvandermyde]

the following was sent to me by staff as background from the DFPR over the bill and it's genesis.

"Subject: RE: Armored Car Guard proposal

Last year I received a telephone call from the Peoria Police Department
(I believe it was a lieutenant). He related that the night before his
officers had spotted an armored car parked near an open area of
downtown. The doors were open and two individuals were seen near the
armored car. Neither had on uniforms but at least one was observed with
a firearm. It was suspected that this could be a hijacked armored car or
a robbery in progress. After back-up arrived, the officers approached
and disarmed the individuals. The individuals informed the officers that
they were employees of the armored car company, that the vehicle had
broken down, and that they were sent by their employer to guard the
truck until it could be towed. The officers asked the individuals for
identification as well as their state-issued Firearm Control Cards. (A
Firearm Control Card is issued by the Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation to authorize the carrying of a firearm by
private detectives, private alarm contractors, and security guards under
the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint
Vendor, and Locksmith Act.)

The individuals said that they did not have Firearm Control Cards and
didn't need them. This is what prompted the call to me. The Peoria
Police Department wanted to know if these armed guards of the armored
car company were required to have Firearm Control Cards to authorize
them to carry firearms. I said yes. I later received a telephone call
back from this same lieutenant. He related that he had spoken with a
representative of the armored car company and he was claiming that armed
guards of armored car companies were exempt from the law on carrying
firearms and did not require a Firearm Control Card. I gave the
lieutenant the cite to the section in the Criminal Code (Section
24-2(a)(8)that required Firearm Control Cards for armed guards of
armored car companies. I don't remember if I gave this to him in the
first or second call. The Department does not license or regulate
armored car companies. However, this section gives the Department the
responsibility to perform background checks on armed guards for armored
car companies, requires that the armed guards complete the same
classroom and firearm training as do armed security guards for private
security companies, and provides for the issuance of Firearm Control
Cards to the armed guards by the Department.)

I looked at the rest of Section 24-2 and saw that there was language in
paragraphs 4 and 9 that appeared to exempt armed guards of armored car
companies, in contrast to the provisions in paragraph 8. I spoke with
our Department supervisor who handles the Firearm Control Cards and we
reviewed his list of companies that had registered with the Department
and had applied for Firearm Control Cards for their armed guards. The
list contained the names of a number of armored car companies but I
could see that a number of companies, of which I was familiar, were not
included.

The purpose of our legislative proposal is to remove the conflict. We
presume that the legislature wants the Department to handle the
responsibility of performing background checks on armed guards of
armored car companies and issue Firearm Control Cards to signify their
approval and authority to carry firearms. Our proposal removes the
conflicting language in paragraphs 4 and 9. However, if the legislature
determines that it does not want the Department to carry out this task,
it should delete portions of paragraph 8. The Department needs
direction. Either the Department is responsible for the performing
background checks and issuing Firearm Control Cards or it is not."

[mikew]

Thanks, Todd.

[Tvandermyde]

guys there has been a fair amount of talk about this. But here is where I pick my targets.

I don't work for amored car comapanies. I'm sure Wells Fargo, or Brinks can afford someone to represent their interests. I don't see it as our fight. I'll have to cross referance the sections they mention, but it doesn't ban guns, doesn't affect civilians, or our membership. So I don't think it's our fight.

We got bigger issues and I just heard today that Daley is going to make another round at a semi-auto ban this year.

[mstrat]

Thank you for the information.  Assuming that letter is accurate and earnest, it certainly does not sound like they are trying to disarm armored car guards (as it appears they can still get Firearm Control Cards).

That was very informative and helpful, so thanks for sharing.

45superman: I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that HB0215 should be taken off the list, for the same reasons Todd pointed out in his follow-up after the letter.

[45superman]

mstrat, on 26 January 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

45superman: I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that HB0215 should be taken off the list, for the same reasons Todd pointed out in his follow-up after the letter.

OK--I still don't like it, but I agree it's probably not worth fighting.

Moved to neutral.

[abolt243]

mikew, on 26 January 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

If you read the armored car one carefully, it would neuter "Joe's Armored Car Emporium", but foster  "Big Bank Inc, Armored Car Division".

ie. Go Wells Fargo, Go Away Illinois Armored, or something like that.

I'm not a lawyer, a legislator, or an employee of the LRB that writes the "official" version of the bill.  But, in reading the current version of the statute it does indeed seem that paragraphs 4 and 9 exempt employees of an armored car company from the UUW statute and does NOT require a Firearm Control Card.  Paragraph 8 explicitly requires a FCC for an employee of a "financial institution" then goes on to define "financial institution" as:  

For purposes of this subsection, "financial institution" means a bank, savings and loan association, credit union or company providing armored car services.

So, which is it?  Another case of our laws being so ambiguous that even a Philadelphia lawyer can't figure them out.  Much less a Chicago one!

Looks like an effort to clarify some existing statutes, bears monitoring, but not to support or oppose.  It'll be interesting though if the 4 and 9 paragraphs are allowed to stand.  That appears to allow armored car personell to carry with NO training. Horrors!!  /sarcasm off.

Link to statute, scroll down to appropriate section 24-2 (a)

[mikew]

The armored car bill is not worth any more bandwidth.

[Buzzard]

mikew, on 27 January 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

The armored car bill is not worth any more bandwidth.

Probably not. But I've always wondered - Can ordinary citizens own an armored truck? You never see any old ones.
What happens to them? Are they legal to own? They might be the thing to have - for like driving through Rockford.

[Ashrak]

Were Constitutional Carry respected,it seems to me that the armored car SNAFU would be a moot point.  

[mstrat]

I know 45superman is working on updating the opening post on this thread with the new wave of senate bills, so i won't paste them all here.

But I found this one to be particularly awesome:
http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=84&GA=97

If I'm understanding it right, it's basically a "take the guns away from the hypocrite aldermen" bill  

[45superman]

mstrat, on 27 January 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I know 45superman is working on updating the opening post on this thread with the new wave of senate bills, so i won't paste them all here.

But I found this one to be particularly awesome:
http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=84&GA=97

If I'm understanding it right, it's basically a "take the guns away from the hypocrite aldermen" bill  

Yeah--I'm rather partial to that one, myself .

I think I'm caught up on the Senate bills.

[Sigma]

maybe we could use this as leverage, give us what we want and we give you armored cars

[45superman]

I listed SB 75 as "good":

Quote

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately.

If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did.  Any thoughts?

William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this.

[mstrat]

Sigma, on 27 January 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

maybe we could use this as leverage, give us what we want and we give you armored cars

I have a strong suspicion that it provides very little leverage. I get the impression it's one person's pet bill.  The kind of leverage we need for RTC is much much BIGGER.  like tax increases. :/

[45superman]

mstrat, on 27 January 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

I have a strong suspicion that it provides very little leverage. I get the impression it's one person's pet bill.  The kind of leverage we need for RTC is much much BIGGER.  like tax increases. :/

I don't remember Senator McCarter introducing gun bills in the past, but he has jumped in with both feet this session, with a number of good bills.  It'll be nice to have a new ally in the Senate.

[abolt243]

45superman, on 27 January 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

I listed SB 75 as "good":

Quote

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately.

If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did.  Any thoughts?

William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this.

Again, I think it's a "clarification" bill.  As the FOID act reads now, a person must have a FOID to posess a gun in IL.  To have a FOID, you must be a resident.  Logically, then, non-residents don't need a FOID because they can't qualify, but they can own a gun under Federal law.  Some argue that non-residents can't have a firearm in their posession in IL BECAUSE they can't get a FOID.  Much like IN saying you can't take a handgun to a range in their state because they require an IN LTCH or a license from another state, municipality or country to move a handgun from your house except for a couple of exceptions.

I'm guessing Haine is trying to put into writing what has been practice to prevent overzealous LEO's from arresting non-residents.  

Just my guess.  We'll see how close it was!

AB

[45superman]

abolt243, on 27 January 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

Again, I think it's a "clarification" bill.  As the FOID act reads now, a person must have a FOID to posess a gun in IL.  To have a FOID, you must be a resident.  Logically, then, non-residents don't need a FOID because they can't qualify, but they can own a gun under Federal law.  Some argue that non-residents can't have a firearm in their posession in IL BECAUSE they can't get a FOID.  Much like IN saying you can't take a handgun to a range in their state because they require an IN LTCH or a license from another state, municipality or country to move a handgun from your house except for a couple of exceptions.

I'm guessing Haine is trying to put into writing what has been practice to prevent overzealous LEO's from arresting non-residents.  

Just my guess.  We'll see how close it was!

AB

That makes sense.  I think I'll still ask Senator Haine about it.  

Don't worry--I'll be polite (I can do that, you know, if I really force myself )

[mstrat]

45superman, on 27 January 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

I listed SB 75 as "good":

Quote

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Exempts from the requirement that a person who acquires or possesses a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser within the State must have in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police, a nonresident who is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of his or her state from owning a firearm. Effective immediately.

If I'm reading that right, it exempts nonresidents from the FOID requirement, which would seem to give nonresidents more rights than residents, so maybe I shouldn't have classified it the way I did.  Any thoughts?

William Haine (who introduced the bill) is my senator, I might ask him what he has in mind with this.

I think abolt is right on, that it just clarifies and doesn't change anything for anything.

These changes seem to be two-fold:
* Instead of non-residents being exempt from needing a FOID for being "currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state," they are exempt simply by not being prohibited persons.
* There are also a lot of unnecessary (and potentially confusing/misleading) stuff in there.  All those enumerated situations for not needing a FOID (while hunting, or at a range, etc), are entirely pointless if the person can legally own a firearm via the "currently licensed or registered" provision

Full changes for reference: http://www.ilga.gov/...cSess=&Session=

[Tvandermyde]

the senate bills are ours.

more later.

[Hatchet]

i hate it when Todd does that...

yea its ours... now wait in anguish about it till later...




this is a baddy

SB0066
Amends the Probate Act of 1975. Provides that before the distribution of a firearm to the distributee of an estate, other than a small estate or an estate independently administered, the representative must transmit to the court a written statement that the distributee is lawfully eligible to own and possess a firearm under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Criminal Code of 1961, and the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and that the distributee possesses a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police. Provides that if the court is satisfied with the validity of the written statement, the court shall order the distribution of the firearm to the distributee. Provides that if the court is not satisfied with the validity of the written statement, the court shall order that the firearm be placed in the custody of the court until the distributee meets the requirements of this provision within a time period set by the court. Provides that if the distributee fails to meet the requirements within the time period set by the court, the court shall order the firearm to be disposed of in a manner prescribed by the court.

[snm]

45superman, on 12 January 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

I'll be adding bills as they are noted, so keep an eye on this.

Good House bills
HB 0003 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (preemption, basically, with regard to ownership, and transfer, but not carry, as I understand)

HB 0004 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV (another preemption bill, focusing on training)

HB 0005 - WILDLIFE CODE-CASE DEFINITION (a "case" is a case, is a case--any container that can hold a gun completely covered can be considered to be a "gun case," even by the Wildlife Code)

HB 0006 - WILDLIFE CODE-MUSKRAT HUNTING (loosens restrictions on muskrat hunting--poor Muskrat Suzie and Muskrat Sam)

HB 0007 - FIREARMS-FOID HOLDER PRIVACY (provides protection for confidentiality of FOID card info)

HB 0008 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-PREEMPTION (pretty comprehensive firearms law preemption bill)

HB 0098 - CORRECTIONAL OFFICER-FIREARMS (carry permit system for current and retired corrections officers)

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

HB 0142 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (another good preemption bill)

HB 0143 - CRIM CD-MILITARY REENACTOR (provides very limited exemptions for using short barreled rifles for reenactments)

HB 0148 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY  (another sheriff's department administered defensive handgun carry bill)

HB 0264 - FIREARM OWNERS-PREEMPT LOC GOV (preemption, as applied to licensing/permitting)

HB 0265 - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT (preemption, as applied to transportation of firearms)


Bad House bills
HB 0203 - CRIM CD-ONE GUN PER MONTH (2nd Amendment rationing, for handguns)


Questionable/neutral/shell bills in House
HB 0066 - CRIMINAL LAW-TECH (Lou Lang shell bill dealing with explosive and incendiary devices)

HB 0215 - CRIM CD-WEAPONS-ARMORED CAR (armored car robber protection bill [WTF?], disarms armored car guards)


Good Senate bills
SB 0027 - FIREARMS-FOID HOLDER PRIVACY (Protects confidentiality of FOID info; Senate version of HB 0007)

SB 0033 - FIREARMS- MUNICIPAL REGULATION (Good, comprehensive firearms preemption bill)

SB 0048 - GUN-FREE ZONE LIABILITY (any government or private entity that establishes a "gun-free zone" is liable for treble damages to anyone who is harmed by criminal activity from which they could have defended themselves with a firearm)

SB 0034 - MUN&CRIM CD-ALDERMEN-FIREARMS (Aldermen have no more right to self-defense than the rest of us)

SB 0049 - FIREARM OWNERS-RECORDS (When you transfer a gun, you must keep record for 5 years, rather than 10, as currently required)

SB 0075 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-NONRESIDENT (Waives FOID requirement for nonresidents)

SB 0076 - FIREARM OWNERS ID-AMMUNITION (If I'm reading this right, it allows mail-order ammo purchases from within the state [I hadn't realized that wasn't already permissible])

SB 0077 - CRIM CD-MILITARY REENACTOR (Limited exemption for short-barreled rifles for historical reenactments)

SB 0080 -  FIREARM OWNERS-18 (Lowers the age at which one can apply for a FOID without parental consent, from 21 to 18)

SB 0081 - CRIM CD-FIREARM TRANSPORT (Preemption as applied to firearm transportation)

SB 0082 - FIREARMS-CONCEALED CARRY (Concealed carry, administered by Sheriff's Department)


Bad Senate bills


Questionable/neutral/shell bills in Senate

[Tvandermyde]

ok Hachet, what do you want to know?

All but 1 of the senate bills I see are ones we handed out. there are more to come.

[45superman]

Hatchet, on 27 January 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

this is a baddy

SB0066
Amends the Probate Act of 1975. Provides that before the distribution of a firearm to the distributee  . . .

How the $&#* did I miss that one?!  Thanks, Hatchet, and sorry, everyone, that I dropped the ball on that.  I'll go through the Senate bills again, to make sure I didn't miss any others I'm responsible for.

[Hatchet]

Tvandermyde, on 29 January 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

ok Hachet, what do you want to know?

All but 1 of the senate bills I see are ones we handed out. there are more to come.

i forget.. nm

45superman, on 29 January 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

How the $&#* did I miss that one?!  Thanks, Hatchet, and sorry, everyone, that I dropped the ball on that.  I'll go through the Senate bills again, to make sure I didn't miss any others I'm responsible for.

were all human...

[paknon2wheels]

Thanks for all the hard work that goes into keeping this thread up to date. It makes it really handy to have everything located in one place, so we can see each bills progress (or hopefully the lack there of if it's one we oppose).