jlowrie Posted June 16, 2013 at 07:53 PM Posted June 16, 2013 at 07:53 PM would HB 183 if signed into law preempt the laws in various communities regarding sales of firearms? There are quite a few suburbs around Chicago that prohibit private sales completely. I looked around in the various discussions but didn't see anything addressing this topic. For example, Oak Park limits sales in the village to LEO's, Prison officials and Illinois National Guard members. If HB 183 is signed into law would it be possible to conduct a private sale in OP?
Talonap Posted June 16, 2013 at 08:06 PM Posted June 16, 2013 at 08:06 PM I think it would cover handguns, but not long guns.
Don Gwinn Posted June 16, 2013 at 09:09 PM Posted June 16, 2013 at 09:09 PM It should, but only for handguns and handgun ammunition. From the section "Preemption, page 123: ( Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the 13 regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of 14 handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation 15 of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm 16 Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State 17 Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of 18 this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that 19 ordinance or regulation, enacted on or before the effective 20 date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly that 21 purports to impose regulations or restrictions on a holder of a 22 valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the 23 Department of State Police under this Act in a manner that is 24 inconsistent with this Act, on the effective date of this 25 amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, shall be invalid 09800HB0183sam005 - 124 - LRB098 05760 MRW 46754 a 1 in its application to a holder of valid Firearm Owner's 2 Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police 3 under this Act.
xd9subcompact Posted June 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM Posted June 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM .223/5.56 will be salable, as there are handguns such as that and that will take that.
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 03:11 AM Posted June 17, 2013 at 03:11 AM Don't hold your breath, the wording in HB183 allows for 'assault weapon' bans to be "inconsistent with this Act" and remain valid... So IMO an 'assault weapon' ban can still restrict handguns if they are designated an 'assault weapons'... "Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly." And the vague definition of 'assault weapon'.... Notice it does not exclude hand guns or limit to long guns... "For the purposes of this subsection, "assault weapons" means firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features that cumulatively would place the firearm into a definition of "assault weapon" under the ordinance." Under that definition if someone (supposedly the Home Rule) 'designates' a firearm an 'assault weapon' then it's an 'assault weapon' under the 'assault weapon' ban provision in HB183, and is no longer a 'handgun' and protected under the handgun preemption... Now you can beg to differ, but since many of these Home Rules are using the Blair Holt assault weapon ban as a template, a ban that does include handguns, I won't hold my breath on 'assault weapon' bans being limited to long guns at this point... For me, I would be very cautious of carrying in a Home Rule that bans your carry firearm, or owning a banned firearm in that community at this time, even if it's a hand gun that optimistically should not be banned, I suspect we will have litigation over it shortly...
bob Posted June 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM Posted June 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM My first thought was that the preemption might not cover such sales bans, but I think it should be possible to convince a court that such bans are covered under the term "regulation", and would thus be preempted. Nothing is for sure though in this state.
RoadyRunner Posted June 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM RockerXX, What about the 'for the purposes of this subsection' part? That seems to limit the assault weapon definition that home rule entities can regulate for a while to that subsection only. The prohibition on home rule regulation of handguns is in a different subsection (and earlier) meaning its likely controlling in case of conflict. I do also believe this will end up in court though to settle at some point though.
jlowrie Posted June 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM Author Posted June 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM It should, but only for handguns and handgun ammunition. From the section "Preemption, page 123: ( Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the 13 regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of 14 handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation 15 of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm 16 Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State 17 Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of 18 this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that 19 ordinance or regulation, enacted on or before the effective 20 date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly that 21 purports to impose regulations or restrictions on a holder of a 22 valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the 23 Department of State Police under this Act in a manner that is 24 inconsistent with this Act, on the effective date of this 25 amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, shall be invalid 09800HB0183sam005 - 124 - LRB098 05760 MRW 46754 a 1 in its application to a holder of valid Firearm Owner's 2 Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police 3 under this Act. So I'll take it that the sale fit's under the umbrella of regulation. If the bill passes I'll write Chief Tanksley a letter and see what the official position from the village is going to be.
cm.stites Posted June 17, 2013 at 01:11 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 01:11 PM the preemption makes it so the cities have no power over any regulations of the handguns meaning if theres no state law regulating it theres no city law regulating it.so unless theres a 10 round mag limit on handguns at the state level there cant be one at the city level. it removes everything that deals with handguns registration,sales,mag limits etc.. all become the power of the state only.
DoktorPaimon Posted June 17, 2013 at 02:13 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 02:13 PM I suspect that laws restricting the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition aren't going to end up being invalidated by the preemption language, especially in Chicago. Even if a court ruled that regulation of businesses was preempted, anyone who attempts to open a gun store or start selling ammo in Chicago is going to be in for a world of regulatory harassment. Paperwork will be lost; basic permits denied; the Aldercreature in the area will start throwing their weight around; potential landlords will suddenly find themselves unwilling to offer leases after being threatened with increased regulatory scrutiny; building, fire, and health inspectors will "vigorously apply the laws of Chicago;' CPD will park outside and harass customers; Jesse Jackson will protest and mug for the news; water payments will get lost. The city isn't going to take this laying down. Its harder to harass individuals who carry concealed because, if properly concealed, no one knows, but a business needs so much regular interaction with and cooperation from local government that its just not going to be possible in the near future. I suspect that even 20 or 30 years out we'll still be seeing pockets of resistance from individual gangsters "elected officials."
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 03:07 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 03:07 PM Rocker is wrong Todd I'm glad you are so confident that I'm wrong, i guess time will tell truth in the mean time I'm not going to hold my breath even if you say so, because I have seen courts time and time again come down with decisions that 'experts' say would not happen...
borgranta Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:48 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:48 PM I suspect that laws restricting the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition aren't going to end up being invalidated by the preemption language, especially in Chicago. Even if a court ruled that regulation of businesses was preempted, anyone who attempts to open a gun store or start selling ammo in Chicago is going to be in for a world of regulatory harassment. Paperwork will be lost; basic permits denied; the Aldercreature in the area will start throwing their weight around; potential landlords will suddenly find themselves unwilling to offer leases after being threatened with increased regulatory scrutiny; building, fire, and health inspectors will "vigorously apply the laws of Chicago;' CPD will park outside and harass customers; Jesse Jackson will protest and mug for the news; water payments will get lost. The city isn't going to take this laying down. Its harder to harass individuals who carry concealed because, if properly concealed, no one knows, but a business needs so much regular interaction with and cooperation from local government that its just not going to be possible in the near future. I suspect that even 20 or 30 years out we'll still be seeing pockets of resistance from individual gangsters "elected officials."I agree all it takes is for building inspectors to state that it is not up to code to prevent a business from opening to begin with. They would however find it impossible to interfere with a lawful private sale. If a long established store decided to sell guns it would be harder to interfere since doing so would have the appearance of them conspiring to violate the state law.
THE KING Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:58 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:58 PM Rocker is wrong Todd I'm glad you are so confident that I'm wrong, i guess time will tell truth in the mean time I'm not going to hold my breath even if you say so, because I have seen courts time and time again come down with decisions that 'experts' say would not happen... OK, I have to agree with Todd on this. Here is my question to you. If the state has preemption which is exclusive power by the state, how does a municipality change the definition of a handgun and how would their change over ride the state's preemption authority under Section 5 and 90 of HB183. I don't think they can. The state came out with a clear cut definition of a handgun. A municipilaty can't just change the definition to suit their needs !!
borgranta Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:09 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:09 PM Rocker is wrong Todd I'm glad you are so confident that I'm wrong, i guess time will tell truth in the mean time I'm not going to hold my breath even if you say so, because I have seen courts time and time again come down with decisions that 'experts' say would not happen... OK, I have to agree with Todd on this. Here is my question to you. If the state has preemption which is exclusive power by the state, how does a municipality change the definition of a handgun and how would their change over ride the state's preemption authority under Section 5 and 90 of HB183. I don't think they can. The state came out with a clear cut definition of a handgun. A municipilaty can't just change the definition to suit their needs !!This means that an AR15 pistol would be perfectly legal in Chicago.
THE KING Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:12 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:12 PM I would agree with that also. So would my Rossi Ranch Hand. It's considered a pistol by the BATFE. So would an AK 47 pistol.
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:23 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:23 PM Here is my question to you. If the state has preemption which is exclusive power by the state, how does a municipality change the definition of a handgun and how would their change over ride the state's preemption authority under Section 5 and 90 of HB183. I don't think they can. My post lays out how I believe that could be done, or might be done... Only time will tell if my concerns are valid or not, but when dealing with 'too clever by half' Chicago I'm not going to hold my breath that the wording won't need litigation...
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:50 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 05:50 PM To add to this, here is the Buffalo Grove 'Assault Weapon' ban being discussed tonight... http://ww2.vbg.org/BoardAgendas2007.nsf/79718cff22a239d7862578b70065f928/A14C2F4DC9DA692886257B880054BA14/$FILE/Assault%20Weapons%20Ban.pdf It's pretty clear to me that they believe they have the power to ban handguns as 'assault weapons' thus if passed as written where does that put us?
cm.stites Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:04 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:04 PM thats because they are using the copy of chicago/cooks AWB without being edited. and if ya havent paid attention to the news or reality for the past month even dart complained that they lose control over handguns when 183 goes into effect. they can think what they want the bill was written clearly.and it trumps home rule with the preemption clauses....
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:15 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:15 PM thats because they are using the copy of chicago/cooks AWB without being edited. Well that is what they are proposing to enact, if they do enact without further edits and enforce it as written it will force litigation for legal clarification, just like I have said it would... and if ya havent paid attention to the news or reality for the past month even dart complained that they lose control over handguns when 183 goes into effect. they can think what they want the bill was written clearly.and it trumps home rule with the preemption clauses.... I have to asked do you put your trust in the news and Dart as being legal authorities? I certainly don't, I'll wait for the courts to figure it out if the Home Rules continue to push the issue by enacting and enforcing 'assault weapon' bans that include pistols...
cm.stites Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:18 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:18 PM no i put my trust in the lawyer/ city councilman i talked to the other day that does 2a cases that in fact said they lose all handgun stuff. so my question to you is are you a lawyer? because im pretty sure the person i talked to is and is still active and im pretty sure the nras lawyers have gone over the bill and given thier judgement to todd also.
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:28 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:28 PM no i put my trust in the lawyer/ city councilman i talked to the other day that does 2a cases that in fact said they lose all handgun stuff. so my question to you is are you a lawyer? because im pretty sure the person i talked to is and is still active and im pretty sure the nras lawyers have gone over the bill and given thier judgement to todd also. No doubt they lose handgun stuff, but we are talking about 'assault weapons' and if it's possible for a handgun to be designated as such... FYI. lawyers don't interpret and decide law, judges and juries consisting of ordinary average people do, lawyers simply give advice and represent... In just about every case, lawyers for one side or the other are wrong, I have never heard of a lawyer with a perfect long standing record so I refuse to accept everything they say as the definitive fact...
cm.stites Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:35 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:35 PM you just said they lose handgun control but then you want to turn around and say they gain it back by including it as an assault weapon? sorry but with using the ATF's definition of a handgun even if they chose to classify it as an assault weapon it would be removed from thier control with 183.. and since theres no definition of an assault weapon at the state level theres no possiblity they can keep handguns classified under it with 183.. sorry but ill put my faith in what todd says and other lawyers have said over what you suspect any day.
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:42 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 06:42 PM and since theres no definition of an assault weapon at the state level Go back and read HB183, there will in fact be a definition of 'assault weapon' at that State level that applies to 'assault weapon' ban clause if HB183 is enacted... In fact I copied it above, but here it is again... "For the purposes of this subsection, "assault weapons" means firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features that cumulatively would place the firearm into a definition of "assault weapon" under the ordinance." The Blair Holt bans do just that, they designate what they deem is an 'assault weapon' If you are to suggest that the state will have to make up a list of what is designated as an 'assault weapon' not the Home Rules, then we have nothing to worry about and all this hoopla about trying to stop Home Rules from enacting bans is a waste of time...
BrowningHP Posted June 17, 2013 at 07:07 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 07:07 PM it would be funny if the result of all this is I that i can now own 'assault rifle' in cook county, as long as i dont attach the "thing that goes up to the shoulder" to it...
DoktorPaimon Posted June 17, 2013 at 07:16 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 07:16 PM I agree all it takes is for building inspectors to state that it is not up to code to prevent a business from opening to begin with. They would however find it impossible to interfere with a lawful private sale. If a long established store decided to sell guns it would be harder to interfere since doing so would have the appearance of them conspiring to violate the state law. They already can't do much about private sales, although you can be sure there'll be a sting ever here and there to prevent Craigslist sales and the like. I think you're dead wrong about established businesses, though. City officials are known for having long memories, and I don't think you'll see the building and fire inspectors show up over night. The harassment will happen over time, with documented "complaints" to justify increase regulatory scrutiny. Besides, nobody cares about the appearance of impropriety in Chicago, only what you have the juice to prove. King Daley II built a career on it.
cito Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:21 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:21 PM thats because they are using the copy of chicago/cooks AWB without being edited. and if ya havent paid attention to the news or reality for the past month even dart complained that they lose control over handguns when 183 goes into effect. they can think what they want the bill was written clearly.and it trumps home rule with the preemption clauses....Did anyone ever think that (possibly) 183 could be vetoed and NOT overridden? In that case, all these little towns, hamlets and burgs would have a nice and tidy AWB on their books-- limiting ALL mag capacity, not just rifles. These towns will all strike the handgun language if 183 is signed (or veto overridden), so basically- they have nothing to lose at this point. If Wilson is decided in our favor, these towns will (naturally) revoke the rest of their AWB.
RockerXX Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:31 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:31 PM The harassment will happen over time, with documented "complaints" to justify increase regulatory scrutiny. Yeah, I know a business owner in a small town that was harassed endlessly for years, village inspectors (junk and debris is an easy violation to stick time and time again), police visits fro so called 'call in complains' and other stuff, all under the claims of 'complaints' from residents... Major political shakeup in the town come election time a few years later, the mayor was replace, most of the village board replaced and also the chief of police booted out and overnight all those so called resident 'complaints' against said business stopped... In places like Chicago where you rarely get the political shake ups I'm sure the relentless scrutiny will take its' toll for many many years...
TFC Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:31 PM Posted June 17, 2013 at 09:31 PM Total preemption is only one election away.I think the electorate has had enough of business as usual. If they enact these AWBs in, half the towns in the state will be bankrupted by the court decisions.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.