32 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

The legislature returns from Spring break today and both Houseand Senateare scheduled for 12:00 Noon.




Since we last met on 3/30/2012, two bills have seen some change:


HB5649 - Stun Gun Tasers Carryhas a new sponsor in Mike Bost after Roger Eddy resigned his office.

HB5745 - Concealed Carry Firearmsadded co-sponsor Thomas Morrison and a balanced budget note was filed projecting that $21,125,000 first year revenue would offset the intial $2 Million start up costs.





While many of the bills we have been monitoring are back in Rules:


SB2780 - Criminal Law Techhas had its deadline extended to 4/26/2012




and bills that previously passed in their original body have found committee assignments:


SB0681 FOID Ammunition Shipment {Intra-State Shipping), having passed the Senate 3/28/2012, is assigned to the House Agriculture Committee

HB4063 - FOID Firearms (BB Guns), having passed the House 3/27/2012, is assigned to the Senate Criminal Law Committee (scheduled for 4/18/2012)

HB4901 - Criminal Law Tech (Military Reenactor), having passed the House 3/21/2012, is assigned to the Senate Public Health Committee.

HB5682 - Criminal Cd Security Training. having passed the House 3/8/2012, is assigned to the Sentae Public Health Committee.




I see nothing pertaining to us on the House Calendar today.





Next Days Scheduled

House:   4/18/2012
Senate::  4/18/2012


 House Calendar 4-17-12.pdf   5.37MB   38 downloads

Edited by mauserme, 17 April 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[mauserme]

I've attached the Senate calendar but will have to finish its review a bit late.  I don't expect that there will be anything related to us today.


Edited to add some shell bills that I'm calling neutral for now but probably bear watching (SB2780 had already been on our list).

Senate Calendar

12:00 Noon

SB2780 - Criminal Law Tech (Employment)

Neutral

Senate Sponsor:  Cullerton

Status:  Third Reading ( Senate Amendment No 1 pending)

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the definition of "severely or profoundly mentally retarded person".





SB2792 - Criminal Law Tech (Defense of a Dwelling)

Neutral

Senate Sponsor:  Cullerton

Status:  Third Reading

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning justification in the use of force against another person in defense of a dwelling.





SB3085 - Criminal Law Tech (Defense of a Person)

Neutral

Senate Sponsor:  Radogno

Status:  Third Reading

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the use of force in defense of a person









 Senate Calendar 4-17-12.pdf   5.56MB   15 downloads

Edited by mauserme, 17 April 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[Uncle Harley]

I haven't followed much through the senate,  how does it work.  I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie????   Did you mean pass over to the senate?   I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change  to Eddy last yr.

[lieut89]

Uncle Harley, on 17 April 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

I haven't followed much through the senate,  how does it work.  I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie????   Did you mean pass over to the senate?   I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change  to Eddy last yr.

I think that's a typo Harley. It actually passed the House and has moved to the Senate.

[Uncle Harley]

lieut89, on 17 April 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Uncle Harley, on 17 April 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

I haven't followed much through the senate,  how does it work.  I see you say HB4063 has passed the senate and off to comittie????   Did you mean pass over to the senate?   I've been trying to watch this bill all the way through since I suggested this change  to Eddy last yr.

I think that's a typo Harley. It actually passed the House and has moved to the Senate.

it's in the comittie, just didn't know how the process works.  I would assume it's similar to the house correct?

[lieut89]

Correct.

[mauserme]

Yep, there was a typo that I corrected.  

The bill passed the House (not the Senate) and has been sent to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Criminal Law Committee.  If approved for full consideration there, it will be added to the Senate calendar for potential floor debate and, if passed without amendments, will then be sent to the governor for signature.

[Uncle Harley]

mauserme, on 17 April 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Yep, there was a typo that I corrected.  

The bill passed the House (not the Senate) and has been sent to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Criminal Law Committee.  If approved for full consideration there, it will be added to the Senate calendar for potential floor debate and, if passed without amendments, will then be sent to the governor for signature.

awsome!,  thanks for the detailed reply.   How do we help  ensure it gets out of committee?

[willxjcherokee]

Yay for another co-sponsor for rtc

[Gunslinger]

Lol at 20 million offsets 2 million

[drdoom]

Why are we wasting time and resources on conceal carry for tasers?

[Tvandermyde]

Guys and gals

Yesterdays task force hearing went well.

Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking.

I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns?

Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners

Over all it was a good day

[abolt243]

Tvandermyde, on 17 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Guys and gals

Yesterdays task force hearing went well.

Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking.

I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns?

Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners

Over all it was a good day

The Chicago PD testified against, but we still have the support of the Chicago Sergeants and Lieutenants Assocs right??

Tim

[chicago]

Tvandermyde, on 17 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Guys and gals

Yesterdays task force hearing went well.

Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking.

I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns?

Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners

Over all it was a good day

It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are.  Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have.

[Molly B.]

abolt243, on 17 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

The Chicago PD testified against, but we still have the support of the Chicago Sergeants and Lieutenants Assocs right??

Tim

Yes they do.  A gentleman who represents both those groups testified very effectively about their support.

[wilessiuc]

Tvandermyde, on 17 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Guys and gals

Yesterdays task force hearing went well.

Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea. Cook SA was slated to testify, but didn'tfor some reason they left without speaking.

I had a few exchnges with people that came to talk. Asking the Pike County sheriffif he thought his voters missunderstood the idea that their refferrendum would allow loaded handguns?

Or how it squared with the 43% suuport claim by the an ti-gunners

Over all it was a good day

Is it too early to say when we can be looking at a floor vote on 148 or 5745?

[mauserme]

Todd previously posted that there would be  a vote on Right to Carry after Spring break.  I'm sure he'll elaborate when the time is right.


I've edited the Senate post above to include a few shell bills that are on the calendar at third reading.

[Will S.]

I have a question about the CPD.  I would imagine the individuals showing up to say they are against this are the big wigs in the police force (Rahm's yes men).  Are these people part of the union?  If not, would it be possible for the union to say whether the Police on the ground are for or against this?  I was just wondering if we could get the voice of the majority of the CPD out there and if they would be on our side.  But I don't know if the foot soldiers could go against the big wigs.

[Uncle Harley]

HB5745 - Concealed Carry Firearmsadded co-sponsor Thomas Morrison and a balanced budget note was filed projecting that $21,125,000 first year revenue would offset the intial $2 Million start up costs


This surplus can and will be used to fund more officers correct?   If so, this is the infomation we need to be hitting the Chicago streets with.  What neighborhood will say  you know what,  I think we have enough police coverage.   But when you put it in a way that  the state is broke and cant afford more police,  and  we are already taxed to the limits, and law abiding gun owners want to not only possible give up their life to be able to protect you, they are willing to give up money to hire more police to do the same thing.   Win Win.  IMO


Here is the questionair. Would you be willing to support  lawfull gun owners who have met certain training criteria,   been fingerprinted, and  went through extensive  FBI background checks, as well as checks from the local sherrif and state police  to carry loaded weapons in order to protect themselves, if it would raise 20 million + dollars to help put more officers on the streets to better help those who either  chose not to carry, or do not meet the legal requirements to do so ?

[Buzzard]

chicago, on 17 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are. Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have.

Am I misreading this? You're suggesting "we" are being misrepresented.

Does that mean "we" as gun owners - or "we" here as forum members?

And just HOW are we being misrepresented?

[tlatoani]

He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov.

Guessing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2

[Jeffrey]

tlatoani, on 17 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov.

Guessing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2

Or just the liberal media in general.  That is how I read it.  Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here.  We are all in this together.

[Jeckler]

Jeffrey, on 17 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

tlatoani, on 17 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov.

Guessing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2

Or just the liberal media in general.  That is how I read it.  Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here.  We are all in this together.

I read it to be how lawful gunowners are mis-repreneted.  A very vocal minority attempt to speak on behalf of the majority.  A very powerful minority (PD Brass) are setting policies that impact the majorty of police force.  This is similar to how a minority number of people (Chicago Machine Politicians) are setting policies that impact 100% of the people in the state.

[Tvandermyde]

The PBPA represents both the Sgts and Lts. their general counsel did a very good job of refuting the command hack's comments.

The commander could not answer any questions about how many of the people they pick up with an "illegal" gun had a FOID card, CFP or Chicago registration certificate.

Sean did a very good job of talking about the 85% of the PBPA members that support RTC.

[firepiper]

Will S., on 17 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

I have a question about the CPD.  I would imagine the individuals showing up to say they are against this are the big wigs in the police force (Rahm's yes men).  Are these people part of the union?  If not, would it be possible for the union to say whether the Police on the ground are for or against this?  I was just wondering if we could get the voice of the majority of the CPD out there and if they would be on our side.  But I don't know if the foot soldiers could go against the big wigs.

Will,

Yes, it's the politically appointed administrators that go downstate and do Rahm's (or Daley's in the past) bidding

This issue was addressed on multiple occasions by Chicago Police Blogger "Second City Cop"

He posted a criticism of the FOP's non-reaction (as compared to the Chicago Police Sgt's & Lt's along with the Illinois Sheriff's Association)

The average street copper seems to support RTC......

Check out some of the discussion here...there are several posts....

SCC Search on FOP and RTC

I'll see if I can find the original reply posted by the Lodge president on their website....

[mauserme]

The Senate is convening.

[chicago]

Buzzard, on 17 April 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

chicago, on 17 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

It's funny how the Chicago PD are mis-represented just as bad as we are. Most CPD I know are very much pro carry and are really unhappy with thier current leadership. It's astounding to think about how much power just a tiny handful in one city have.

Am I misreading this? You're suggesting "we" are being misrepresented.

Does that mean "we" as gun owners - or "we" here as forum members?

And just HOW are we being misrepresented?

I excelled at art not english. I'll try to be a little more clear on my thoughts...

The political leadership of Illinois who "represent" us (the people of Illinois) have manipulated the system to their advantage. i.e. Taxes, budgets, gun laws, crime rates, alderman maps, contracting, etc.  -Springfield speaks and rules for a select few residing in Chicago, not for the majority who reside in Illinois.  (I'm sure you're aware of that.)

Very much like how the police superintendent speaks for the CPD as a whole.  If you talk to the average officer on the street his views will starkly contrast what is spewing out of the super's mouth.  Almost every Chicago LEO that I know supports RTC for law-abiding citizens.

Todd says "The Chicago, PD was the only local entity that showed up and testified against the idea"  I believe the CPD have been mis-represented by whoever showed up and testified against the idea for them.

[chicago]

Jeckler, on 17 April 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Jeffrey, on 17 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

tlatoani, on 17 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

He probably means Illinois residents are being misrepresented be the state gov.

Guessing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2

Or just the liberal media in general.  That is how I read it.  Buzz, I strongly doubt Chicago is refering to anyone here.  We are all in this together.

I read it to be how lawful gunowners are mis-repreneted.  A very vocal minority attempt to speak on behalf of the majority.  A very powerful minority (PD Brass) are setting policies that impact the majorty of police force.  This is similar to how a minority number of people (Chicago Machine Politicians) are setting policies that impact 100% of the people in the state.

Yes, what they said Buzz!

[mauserme]

Thanks for clarifying, chicago.  I think its all good.

[mauserme]

The Senate stands in recess.