All Activity

Jabba's court won't do a thing about it. It needs to be a federal civil rights case.

Thanks Euler! I had missed it too.

House Calendar 9:00 AM HR181 End Gun Violence Neutral House Sponsor: Harper Status: Order of Resolutions Synopsis As Introduced Honors the lives of those lost to gun violence in Illinois and Chicago. Urges government to work collaboratively to create safer communities through targeted investments, Reaffirms commitment to end gun violence. HJR26 End Gun Violence Task Force Neutral House Sponsor: Harper Status: Order of Resolutions Synopsis As Introduced Creates the End Gun Violence in Disproportionately Impacted Areas Task Force to study, analyze data, make recommendations, and develop policy proposals addressing the root causes of violence and resulting trauma to drastically reduce gun violence in disproportionately impacted areas. House Amendment 1 to HJR26 - Adopted 4/30/2025 Deletes everything. Reinserts language creating the End Gun Violence in Disproportionately Impacted Areas Task Force. Makes the Director of the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity an ex officio, nonvoting, advisory member. House Amendment 2 to HJR26 - Pending Deletes everything. Reinserts language creating the End Gun Violence in Disproportionately Impacted Areas Task Force. Makes changes to the membership of the Task Force. Makes changes to the agency providing administrative support. HB2327 Employment - Tech Neutral House Sponsor: Friess Status: Held on Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Labor Dispute Act. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the short title. House Amendment 1 to HB2327 - Pending Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Child Labor Law of 2024. Provides that nothing in the Act applies to the work of a minor 14 years of age or older working as a scorer at the World Shooting and Recreational Complex on the dates of the U.S. Open and the Grand American World Trapshooting Championships if the minor is located, during those competitions, at least 15 feet behind the firing line of the trap shooters participating in the competitions. Makes a conforming change. SB1899 FOID - Diversionary Program Support Senate Sponsor: Sims, Hunter (Added After Passage: Collins) House Sponsor: Slaughter Status: House Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that a person charged with certain weapon-related offenses under the Criminal Code of 2012 and sentenced to the First Time Weapons Offense Program under the Unified Code of Corrections or any other court-ordered diversionary program created by law or by a court of the State of Illinois may submit an application for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card before receiving a court order demonstrating completion of the program. Directs the Illinois State Police to issue a Firearm Owner's Identification Card to such a person upon receiving a court order demonstrating completion of the program, provided the person is otherwise eligible to receive a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Specifies that a FOID application made under this provision shall be approved or denied within 10 business days of receiving a court order or written notification from a State's Attorney that the person completed a diversionary program. Senate Amendment 1 to SB1899 - Tabled 4/9/2025 Replaces everything after the enacting clause with the provisions of the introduced bill with the following changes. Removes changes to provisions regarding application and renewal. In provisions regarding unlawful use of a weapon offense diversionary programs, provides that a person charged with an unlawful use of weapons offense, or the aggravated offense, and sentenced to the First Time Weapons Offense Program or any other court-ordered diversionary program created by law or an Illinois court may submit an application for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card upon receiving a court order (rather than prior to receiving a court order) demonstrating completion of the program. Provides that the State shall dismiss the pending charge upon successful completion of the program. Senate Amendment 2 to SB1899 - Adopted 4/3/2025 Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. In provisions concerning the First Time Weapon Offense Program, provides that, upon the successful completion of the Program, a defendant may submit an application for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card upon receiving a court order demonstrating completion of the Program. Provides that the Illinois State Police shall issue a Firearm Owner's Identification Card to such person upon receiving a court order demonstrating completion of the Program if the person is otherwise eligible to receive a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Provides that nothing in the provisions concerning the First Time Weapon Offense Program shall prohibit the Illinois State Police from denying an application for or revoking a Firearm Owner's Identification Card as provided by law. Adds provisions concerning unlawful possession of weapons offense diversion programs and a defendant's Firearm Owner's Identification Card eligibility. Provides that a State's Attorney, at his or her discretion, may request that a defendant charged with an unlawful possession of weapons offense or aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon offense, if punishable as a Class 4 felony or lower, be sentenced to a First Time Weapon Offense Program. House Amendment 1 to SB1899 - Adopted 5/1/2025 Provides that a State's Attorney, at his or her discretion, may request that a defendant charged with an unlawful possession of weapons offense under the Criminal Code of 2012 or aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon offense under the Criminal Code of 2012, if punishable as a Class 4 felony or lower, be sentenced to an appropriate diversion program (rather than a First Time Weapon Offense Program). SB2002 ISP Fund Consolidation Neutral Senate Sponsor: Loughran Cappel, Turner (Sally), Holmes, Koehler, Hastings House Sponsor: Cabello Status: House Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Illinois State Police Law, the State Finance Act, the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, the Illinois Vehicle Code, the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act, the Cannabis Control Act, the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, the Narcotics Profit Forfeiture Act, the Unified Code of Corrections, the Sex Offender Registration Act, the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, and the Illinois False Claims Act. Makes changes to provisions concerning how certain moneys paid to the State are deposited into certain funds pertaining to the Illinois State Police. Provides that certain funds shall be dissolved after transferring the remaining balance in those funds to designated funds. Makes conforming changes. Effective September 1, 2026. House Amendment 1 to SB2002 - Tabled 4/23/2025 Provides that moneys in the State Police Operations Assistance Fund shall be allocated in the manner described in specified provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act and specified provisions of the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act. Removes language requiring 50% of the of the moneys received from specified provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act and specified provisions of the Murder and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act to be allocated by the Illinois State Police for sheriffs' offices and police departments. SB2280 Office Firearm Violence Prev Neutral Senate Sponsor: Peters House Sponsor: Slaughter Status: House Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Reimagine Public Safety Act. Provides that the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall issue a report to the General Assembly annually (rather than no later than January 1 of each year) that identifies communities within Illinois municipalities of 1,000,000 or more residents and municipalities with less than 1,000,000 residents and more than 35,000 residents that are experiencing concentrated firearm violence, explaining the investments that are being made to reduce concentrated firearm violence, and making further recommendations on how to end Illinois' firearm violence epidemic. Provides that the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall compile recommendations from all Lead Violence Prevention Conveners and report to the General Assembly annually (rather than bi-annually) on these funding recommendations. SB2431 Explosives & Consumer Firework Oppose Senate Sponsor: Turner (Doris) House Sponsor: Hoffman Status: House Second Reading Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Illinois Explosives Act. Makes changes to defined terms. Provides that no person shall acquire, possess, use, transfer, or dispose of explosive materials unless the person has obtained a valid Illinois Individual Explosives License issued by the Department of Natural Resources, except as provided in the Act. In provisions concerning qualifications for licensure, provides that no person shall qualify to hold a license who is an unlawful user of or addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance or has been adjudicated a person with a mental disability as defined in the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the person's FOID card is suspended or revoked. Provides that upon receipt of a second revocation of an explosives license, the person shall no longer be eligible to apply for an Illinois individual explosive license. Provides that any bulk storage or holding of consumer fireworks in quantities of 1,001 pounds or greater that is not in compliance with the Pyrotechnic Use Act or the Pyrotechnic Distributor and Operator Licensing Act must be stored in a Department certified Type 1, Type 2, or Type 4 magazine and must meet the distancing requirements for low explosives in applicable law. Provides that no consumer firework cake, designed for consumer use, shall exceed 500 grams in total explosive chemical composition. Provides that any person transporting explosive materials in the State shall comply with the placard requirements, as required by federal administrative rule. Makes other changes. Senate Amendment 1 to SB2431 - Adopted 3/19/2025 Makes a change concerning the definition of "consumer fireworks". In provisions concerning storage requirements, provides that any bulk storage or holding of consumer fireworks in quantities of 1,001 pounds or greater that is not in compliance with the Pyrotechnic Use Act or the Pyrotechnic Distributor and Operator Licensing Act must be stored in a Department certified Type 1, Type 2, or Type 4 magazine and must meet the distancing requirements, provided by administrative rule, that pertain to the safe storage of low explosives (rather than the distancing requirements for low explosives in federal rules and applicable law). Removes the language that provides that no consumer firework cake, designed for consumer use, shall exceed 500 grams in total explosive chemical composition. In provisions concerning unlawful possession, storage, and transfer, makes changes concerning penalties. Corrects typographical errors. Senate Amendment 2 to SB2431 - Adopted 4/9/2025 Removes language providing that no person may possess or store a firework cake, designed for consumer use, that exceeds 500 grams in total explosive chemical composition. House Amendment 1 to SB2431 - Adopted 5/6/2025 Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Reinserts the provisions of the engrossed bill with the following change. In provisions concerning the powers, duties, and functions of the Department of Natural Resources, adds the ability to authorize any officer or Department employee to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of persons licensed or certified under the Act to the extent such records and properties relate to the safe and proper storage, handling, and use of explosive materials. Makes grammatical changes.

Today is the committee deadline for House bills in the Senate, and for Senate bill in the House. Senate session has been cancelled today, so it's committee deadline is effectively behind us, bearing in mind that deadlines are treated more as guidelines to be followed when convenient. Yesterday in the Senate, HB1710 Criminal Justice Reform was moved from second to third reading. Though not immediately obvious, HB1628 Seizure & Forfeiture Report was approved by the Judiciary Committee, and will appear on the Senate Calendar when they return next week. The House is scheduled for 9:00 AM. Senate for today has been cancelled. Next Days Scheduled House: 5/13/2025 Senate: 5/13/2025 House Calendar

Reserved for updates.

So basically all of the “military grade” weapons meant to do destruction on battlefields were in private hands when the 2A was written and the 2A was written so citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government with “military grade” weapons if necessary but, according to Illannoy, if we stare at the simple wording of “shall not be infringed” long enough we will find the magic exclusion? Huh… Remind me again, do we drug test government employees and leadership in IL?

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW !! Plain as day !!

I don't read as much as I used to here, because I moved out of state. But there still seems to be good content here.

I will not agree with the shenanigans being constitutional, but I do agree that the politicians have set up the "system" to their advantage so they can do just about what ever they want. AND they will continue to do so until they are told they can't, probable more than told, FORCED to change it.

It appears that Senate session tomorrow has been cancelled, though I can't confirm yet. The Senate stands adjourned until 5/13/2025 @ 12:00 Noon, as far as I can tell at the moment. ETA: Later confirmed.

This whole process has destroyed my life I really need help. Can someone please recommend an honorable lawyer to me?

Well, obviously!

Does this mean I'm banned?

No news from SCOTUS yet, since there is no conference this week. Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner posted a video about all the relistings, apparently because he needed to say something after saying he'd been waiting to say something when something constructive happens. His title is misleading (shocking, I know), since the case has not been relisted yet. Presumably it will be, though. The next conference is Thursday May 15.

Unpopular take: The shell game shenanigans are constitutional, and I'm fairly sure Illinois isn't the only state that does something like it. When you leave giant legal loopholes, politicians will find any way they can to take advantage of them.

The House stands adjourned until 5/9/202 @ 9:00 AM.

House Supplemental Calendar 1 and Senate Supplemental Calendar 1 are available.

HB1710 Criminal Justice Reform is moved to third reading in the Senate.

The Senate has also come to order.

"Especially Dangerous" Umm what? Wasn't the standard dangerous and unusual then going to at the time....? So dangerous is okay, but not especially dangerous. Also, who defines what firearms are ED. Also, if it's ED how can it be dangerous? "Pardon me while I whip this out;" So flaccid, would not be dangerous or especially so?

Washington Gun Law's thoughts on the State's filing:

The House is coming to order. 115 members are present.

#2 is explicitly requesting interest balancing for a 2nd amendment question, where interest balancing was explicitly disallowed by NYSRPA v Bruen in 2022.

Yesterday, the Defendants-Appellants (The State) filed their Opening Brief in the 7th Circuit on time. Harrel v Raoul 2025.05.07_031_Opening_Brief_of_Defendants.pdf

IL appeals court: Time has arrived for IL Supreme Court to rein in Dems' unconstitutional lawmaking A state appeals court has again publicly called on the Illinois Supreme Court to clamp down on unconstitutional lawmaking by the Democrats who dominate the Illinois General Assembly. In the ruling, a three-justice panel of the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court in southern Illinois invited plaintiffs to again try to persuade the Illinois Supreme Court to address mounting legislative abuses enabled under a state Supreme Court-granted legal exemption. One of the three justices went further, however, urging the state high court to at last correct lawmakers for repeatedly and flagrantly abusing that exemption to ram through a growing number of controversial new laws without following the lawmaking rules spelled out in the state constitution. On May 2, Illinois Fifth District Justice Mark M. Boie took Illinois' Democratic lawmakers and the state Supreme Court to task in a special concurring opinion tacked on to a decision otherwise disposing of a lingering state court legal challenge to Illinois' law banning so-called ""assault weapons"." "The Illinois Legislature's disregard for constitutional procedure is alarming in and of itself, made more so by the fact that the (gun ban law) directly impacts the fundamental right to keep and bear arms," Boie wrote. In the decision, the panel upheld the ruling of a judge in Effingham County to dismiss the legal challenge brought by a firearms shop and hundreds of gun owners, who were seeking to overturn the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). The PICA law was enacted by Gov. JB Pritzker and Illinois' Democratic legislative supermajority in January 2023. Generally, that law bans the sale or purchase of a long list of semiautomatic firearms, which the state has labeled as dangerous and especially lethal ""assault weapons"." As well as various other firearm accessories, the law also prohibits so-called "large capacity" ammunition magazines typically associated when using such weapons. The law further requires the current owners of such weapons to register them with the Illinois State Police. Those who do not comply could face steep fines or imprisonment. The law was swiftly met with a host of legal challenges in court. Most of the lawsuits challenged the law on the basis that it violates the Second Amendment, particularly as that amendment has been interpreted in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To this point, federal judges in Chicago and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have declined to block the law from taking effect. The federal appeals court has also undone an injunction blocking the law entered by a Southern Illinois federal judge, who ruled the Illinois law unconstitutionally infringes on Illinoisans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In the rulings all but upholding the Illinois law, the other federal judges said they believed Illinois is constitutionally allowed to ban any firearms it deems to be too "dangerous" or too like weapons used by the U.S. military. The cases currently sit before the Seventh Circuit court. However, the fate of the Illinois law could ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court much sooner, should the high court decide to rule on whether a similar ""assault weapons"" ban law in Maryland is constitutional. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law months ago, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided if it will hear the appeal. However, in Illinois, at the same time the federal lawsuits were filed, other challenges were brought in Illinois state court, challenging the law solely as unconstitutional under the Illinois state constitution. Particularly, those lawsuits asserted the law violates Illinois gun owners' and gun sellers' rights to equal protection, because the law carves out exemptions for police officers and other "trained professionals" to own and use otherwise banned ""assault weapons"." The state court lawsuits also asserted the PICA law was enacted unconstitutionally. The lawsuits specifically accused lawmakers of violating the Illinois state constitution's so-called Three Readings Rule. Under the state constitution, lawmakers are specifically required to give all legislation at least three separate readings – one each on three different days – in each chamber of the Illinois General Assembly before voting on any new laws. However, under the judicial holding known as the “Enrolled Bill Doctrine,” the Illinois Supreme Court allows Illinois’ House Speaker and Senate President to simply sign a certification that the three readings rule and other constitutional rules were followed. This “enrolled bill doctrine” then requires courts to accept that certification and reject challenges to laws based on the three readings rule, no matter any amount of evidence to the contrary. In this instance, PICA was enacted using a legislative process known as "gut and replace." Under that process, an existing piece of innocuous legislation, known as a “placeholder bill,” is amended by deleting every bit of text it had contained. It is then further amended to replace that text with much more consequential, and often controversial, legislation. Often, this takes place late at night or in the dark hours of the morning, without fanfare. The new legislation, sometimes totaling hundreds or even thousands of pages, is then dropped on the desks of legislators, who are expected to vote on the legislation with mere hours for discussion or debate. In the case of the PICA law, Democratic lawmakers opted to use a "placeholder" bill that supposedly had to do with insurance regulations in Illinois. Instead, they amended that law - which had supposedly already received the first two of three required "readings" - to delete everything to do with insurance and instead ramrod through the law banning ""assault weapons"" and "large capacity magazines" with minimal debate, within hours of introduction. Nonetheless, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch and Senate President Don Harmon signed the enrolled bill doctrine statement, claiming the law had received the required three readings and should be deemed constitutional. Illinois Democrats have followed the same "gut and replace" strategy to hastily enact a growing host of other controversial and constitutionally questionable laws, including the so-called SAFE-T Act and its abolition of cash bail; a state law forbidding Illinoisans from challenging state laws, unless those challenges are filed in courts in Chicago and Springfield; and a state law intended to block mostly Republicans from the state legislative ballot in the 2024 General Election. In 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court took up one of two primary legal challenges to the ""assault weapons"" ban, opting to hear arguments in a case out of Macon County, led by Illinois State Rep. Dan Caulkins. In its ruling on that case, the Democrat-dominated Illinois Supreme Court rejected the challenge, but did not address whether the law violated Illinoisans' constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Rather, the high court said the law did not violate Illinois gun owners' rights to equal protection. And the court also refused to address whether the gun ban law violated the Three Readings rule. The majority claimed a procedural error on the part of the plaintiffs in the case did not allow the high court to consider if state lawmakers had all but ignored clear constitutional legislative rules when bulldozing the law through the legislature. That punt on the Three Readings question drew sharp dissents from the court's two Republican justices, who said their Democratic colleagues were all but abdicating the court's job of determining the constitutionality of laws to the state's most powerful Democratic lawmakers. “To turn a blind eye to repeated violations of the constitution suggests ‘that the courts must perpetually remain in ignorance of what everybody else in the state knows,'" wrote Justice Lisa Holder White in her dissent at the time. “When, as in this case, the work of the legislature directly impacts a fundamental right, which this court has said the right to keep and bear arms is, the people of Illinois deserve nothing less than the procedural requirements of the constitution be followed by their elected representatives and senators.” Following the ruling in the Caulkins case, however, the Effingham County judge said he had no choice but to dismiss the similar legal challenge to the gun ban law brought by Accuracy Firearms and its co-plaintiffs. That dismissal was upheld by the Fifth District appellate court, in a decision authored by Justice James M. Moore and joined in full by Justice Judy Cates. In the ruling, Moore and Cates said they believed the ruling in Caulkins tied their hands. However, they said they were "not unsympathetic to the concerns raised by the plaintiffs to the enrolled-bill doctrine." "We further note that our ruling in this case provides the plaintiffs with the opportunity to attempt to present this issue to the one court does have the authority to decide if it is the appropriate time for this issue to be revisited: the Illinois Supreme Court," Moore wrote. Boie joined with his colleagues, in part. He partially dissented on the question of whether Accuracy Firearms and the gun owners should get another chance to argue the law unconstitutionally violates their rights to equal protection, as applied to them. But Boie went further on the question of the Three Readings Rule and echoed Holder White and other Illinois appellate justices, who have said the state Supreme Court's refusal to rein in lawmakers create a situation in which courts must "turn a blind eye" to clear and "grave" violations of the Illinois state constitution. Boie noted attorneys for the state defendants, including Pritzker, Welch and Harmon, argued the gun ban law, under the legislation known as HB5471, had been "rigorously debated" in "multiple hearings." Boie said that argument runs counter to reality. "HB5471 was completely gutted and changed by its amendments of January 8 and 9, 2023. The Insurance Code bill that was voted on by the House in 2022 bore no resemblance whatsoever to the firearms bill that passed the House on one vote in 2023," Boie wrote. He further noted the bill was approved in the state Senate at night after comments from just six members, limited to five minutes each. "While this court is required to follow Supreme Court precedent, we are not obliged to abide such flagrant misrepresentation of the facts." Boie said he could not let the current case move forward without comment "on the Legislative and Executive branches of our state government’s continued disregard for the procedural rules and processes involved in passing laws in this state, then hiding behind and citing our supreme court precedent ... to justify their actions." Boie urged the state Supreme Court to conduct a "realistic assessment of the enrolled bill doctrine in light of the numerous records before our courts that clearly rebutted the presumption accepted" the state Supreme Court that their fellow Democrats had followed the state constitution's rules.