78 replies to this topic

[abolt243]

There's been lots of talk in the last couple of days about SB1034, a bill that has morphed from a child tattoo law into a FOID modifying, power grab by certain state agencies.  In a routine audit of the FOID system by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division that was reported to the ISP in June of 2009, it was determined that the ISP was lacking in their reporting of people convicted of Domestic Violence misdemeanors and  prohibiting them from buying/possessing firearms.  In June of 2011 the CJIS reviewed the ISP's resonse to the audit and found it inadequate.  In October 2011 the CJIS sent a letter to Gov Quinn (attached here) asking him to give support to the ISP in addressing these shortcomings.  If the ISP does not address these issues, the FBI will not be able to continue to provide CJIS system access to the ISP.  That means that the ISP will no longer be able to run NCIS checks through the ISP.  Translated:  No retail gun sales in the state of Illinois.

Now,at the eleventh hour, the ISP is pushing SB1034 as amended by HCA#2.  It calls for much broader definitions of Domestic Violence than the federal laws do and adds more misdemeanor offenses to the list of DV convictions that prohibit firearm ownership.  It also allows the ISP to enter into the judicial review process where they couldn't before.  It would cause those that have had convictions reduced to non DV misdemeanors to lose their FOID cards and become prohibited persons for the rest of their lives simply because the altercation was between them and a relative.

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with prohibiting firearms from wife beaters and those that habitually commit violence on family members.  But for the guy/gal that got charged with DV by an over zealous State's Attorney in a nasty divorce case, and later plead to a non DV misdemeanor because he/she couldn't afford the fees or the time to fight it, this could mean the forfeiture of the FOID and no gun ownership ever again.

What needs to happen is to kill this bill that goes way over the top, and do a rewrite of the DV portion of the IL law to bring it more into line with the Federal statutes as concerns Domestic Violence.  Instead, the ISP is ginning up support for thier agenda by waiting until the last minute and then screaming that gun sales will be shut off if SB1034 is not passed.

Please, contact your Representative AND your Senator and tell them to oppose SB1034 as amended and instead push for a rewrite of the DV portion of our IL laws to bring them into compliance with the Federal laws as they pertain to gun ownership.  This thing is on the fast track, it can go from the House to the Senate in one hour.  It's imperative that we oppose it!!

Call now and every day until it's defeated!!

Thanks,
Tim
Letter attached:

 Letter_to_Gov_Quinn_2011.pdf   96.21K   156 downloads

Edited by abolt243, 21 May 2012 - 11:09 AM.
attached the .pdf, .jpg unreadable

[Bud]

done, Senator Hatcher and Representative Pritchard

[Drylok]

So it passed in the senate when it was a child tattoo law and now has been amended which means if it comes out of the house it has to go back to the senate correct?

[abolt243]

Drylok, on 21 May 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

So it passed in the senate when it was a child tattoo law and now has been amended which means if it comes out of the house it has to go back to the senate correct?

Yes, but the time constraints for concurrence are MUCH shorter for concurrence.  Call me.

[wilessiuc]

http://isra.org/aler...12012_soto.html

From ISRA.

[GuitarJedi]

I will do my part.

I called dave syverson, and now will call to Chuck Jefferson.

[Scooter1981]

E-mails sent to my reps.

[Kaeghl]

called both,

[Jason4567]

I wrote my rep, Soto. We will see what comes of it lol...

[05FLHT]

Done.

[krm3051]

Looks like to me the cheapest easiest best thing to do would be to drop the whole foid card system and use the federal ncis check system like the rest of the states?

[abolt243]

Jason4567, on 21 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

I wrote my rep, Soto. We will see what comes of it lol...

She's the one that sponsored the offending amendment.  And yes krm, that would be the best way to proceed.  But you know our ISP, "the only ones".

Tim

[C0untZer0]

Since it is going back to committee, does that mean we can fill out electronic witness slips against it again?

[AFigmentOfYourImagination]

I read the alert from the ISRA. And then I promptly called Morthland's office. I was surprised that a person answered the phone. I started stuttering I was so stunned by a person answering the phone at this hour. She was very nice and listened intently. She asked what the bill pertained to, and I stated that House amendment 2 has essentially rendered it a gun control bill. I kindly thanked her and asked her to pass the message on expressing my opposition to it, and asking Mr. Morthland to vote against it.

[AFigmentOfYourImagination]

I need to refine my statement and include specifics (i.e. many of the points from the ISRA alert).

I wish I could find an email for Rep. Morthland so I could refine my statement, and include some of my own thoughts. When it was a bill targeting drugs, it was good. With amendment #2...it is just another under-handed way of instituting the agenda of a U.S. DOJ that has circumvented the law as they feel necessary to institute more restrictions on the rights of the good people of this country.

[C0untZer0]

I can't find the Senate version of the E-Witness slip.

Maybe the Senate doesn't do it?

[abolt243]

C0untZer0, on 21 May 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

I can't find the Senate version of the E-Witness slip.

Maybe the Senate doesn't do it?

That is correct, the Senate does not have an "E-Witness" program at this time.  However, if you're referring to the amendment on SB1034, it is a House amendment.  The amendment that changed the bill to a toxic bill was House Committee Amendment (HCA) #2 which was approved by the Executive committee last week.  It's too late to file slips on it now.  The current amendment is HCA #3 filed by Soto last Thurs and assigned to Executive committee today.  It makes some technical changes to the bill, but not enough to warrant witness slips.  The action we need now is to call, email and fax both the local and Springfield offices of your state Senator and State Representative and ask them to oppose SB1034.

The ISP is already lobbying the Senate in anticipation of 1034 getting passed in the House.  We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

Tim

[Tvandermyde]

You can still file witness slips opposed to HFA3 just to let them know we are watching

Rep morthlands email:  richmorthland@gmail.com

[AFigmentOfYourImagination]

Tvandermyde, on 21 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

You can still file witness slips opposed to HFA3 just to let them know we are watching

Rep morthlands email:  richmorthland@gmail.com

Thanks Todd! After I type one up to Mr. Morthland to expand on my phone call and make it more a complete and logical reasoning, I am going to utilize the same for when I contact Mr. Jacobs. What has Senator Jacobs' position been with regards to 2A rights in the past? I am pretty sure I read a comment from him in the Prarie Advocate that favored 2A rights, I could be mistaken though.

[abolt243]

Tvandermyde, on 21 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

You can still file witness slips opposed to HFA3 just to let them know we are watching

Rep morthlands email:  richmorthland@gmail.com

K, just did.  Here's the link to the slip guys.  You know the drill, oppose HFA #3.

Tim

[RECarry]

Done.

[FarmHand357]

abolt243, on 21 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 21 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

You can still file witness slips opposed to HFA3 just to let them know we are watching

Rep morthlands email:  richmorthland@gmail.com

K, just did.  Here's the link to the slip guys.  You know the drill, oppose HFA #3.

Tim

This is an opportunity to express opposition to #2 again too, right?

[RECarry]

When I logged in, it let me Oppose #2 and #3 in one move.

[abolt243]

I opposed HCA #2, HFA #3, and marked no opinion on the original bill and HCA #1.   It won't affect the outcome of HCA #2 as it's already adopted, but it does show opposition and that we are watching them.

Tim

[AFigmentOfYourImagination]

Sorry to ask again, but once I do it a few more times, I'll remember. I already opposed House Amendment 2 for SB1034. For House Amendments 3 do I select "Record of appearance only" for what I am opposing via e-witness slip? Also, perhaps clarification via a sticky using particular words to tag instructions for when to select what tab as far as witness slips are concerned is a possibility? I can't find clear directions when I search around for 'em.

[abolt243]

AFigmentOfYourImagination, on 21 May 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Sorry to ask again, but once I do it a few more times, I'll remember. I already opposed House Amendment 2 for SB1034. For House Amendments 3 do I select "Record of appearance only" for what I am opposing via e-witness slip? Also, perhaps clarification via a sticky using particular words to tag instructions for when to select what tab as far as witness slips are concerned is a possibility? I can't find clear directions when I search around for 'em.

Unless you're there and going to make an oral presentation or have a written statement to file opposing the bill, then yes, mark record of appearance only.  The verbage is somewhat outdated in that previously a person had to physically attend the meeting to fill out a slip.  I'm sure as the process evolves (no, this ain't gay marriage we're talking about) they will change the verbage on the slips, perhaps to something like "filing in opposition" or "expressing support".  At the rate these guys move though, I wouldn't expect it to change for several more years!

[AFigmentOfYourImagination]

abolt243, on 21 May 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

AFigmentOfYourImagination, on 21 May 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Sorry to ask again, but once I do it a few more times, I'll remember. I already opposed House Amendment 2 for SB1034. For House Amendments 3 do I select "Record of appearance only" for what I am opposing via e-witness slip? Also, perhaps clarification via a sticky using particular words to tag instructions for when to select what tab as far as witness slips are concerned is a possibility? I can't find clear directions when I search around for 'em.

Unless you're there and going to make an oral presentation or have a written statement to file opposing the bill, then yes, mark record of appearance only.  The verbage is somewhat outdated in that previously a person had to physically attend the meeting to fill out a slip.  I'm sure as the process evolves (no, this ain't gay marriage we're talking about) they will change the verbage on the slips, perhaps to something like "filing in opposition" or "expressing support".  At the rate these guys move though, I wouldn't expect it to change for several more years!

Thank you for the clarification UAB.

[bemidji]

Done.

[C0untZer0]

There is still time to fill out a witness slip.

Is it worth it to call the members of the committee?

I did this last time to try to get a bill killed in committee and it didn't work, but I felt good calling them and telling them about the bill.

[C0untZer0]

Well I called everyone on the Executive Committee anyway and specifically opposed House Amendment 3 to SB1034.  It's relatively painless and only takes 10 minutes.

http://www.ilga.gov/...teeID=889&GA=97