tech141 Posted January 16, 2009 at 08:00 PM Share Posted January 16, 2009 at 08:00 PM Last ActionDate Chamber Action 1/14/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance 720 ILCS 5/24-1.8 new 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 new Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately. Actions Date Chamber Action 1/13/2009 House Prefiled with Clerk by Rep. Edward J. Acevedo 1/14/2009 House First Reading 1/14/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp...ID=76&GA=96 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted January 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM Share Posted January 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM Yep - this crap needs to die... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 16, 2009 at 10:23 PM Share Posted January 16, 2009 at 10:23 PM Of course, they want to know where the grandfathered ones are, so they can come back next session and outlaw possession of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan Posted January 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM Can we sue these guys for treason? They swear to uphold both Illinois and the Federal Constitution yet they cannot seem to understand the intent or what the word infringe means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 17, 2009 at 01:47 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 01:47 PM Can we sue these guys for treason? They swear to uphold both Illinois and the Federal Constitution yet they cannot seem to understand the intent or what the word infringe means. No Dan, we can't sue for treason, but we can do everything in our power to let them know our views and more importantly, dedicate ourselves and our resources (money) to getting them voted out of office next election and finding someone to elect who will uphold the constitution as it's written. If your Reps and Senators are doing a good job, then pick one from another district that's not and support their opponent in the next election. By the way, the next primary election in Illinois for state wide offices is only 13 months away!!! It's not too early to start!! Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted January 17, 2009 at 02:09 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 02:09 PM As defined by many knowlegable people(no I don't have names),an assault weapon is fully automatic,right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 17, 2009 at 02:27 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 02:27 PM As defined by many knowlegable people(no I don't have names),an assault weapon is fully automatic,right?An assault weapon is whatever the anti's want it to be. The original term, no I can't quote a source, is "Anti-assault weapon", i.e. a weapon used to deter an assault. The anti's have turned that around to mean, at least to them, any firearm that looks like it is a military firearm. You can take a standard Ruger 10-22 and very easily turn it into a firearm that would be called "assault weapon" by most uninformed civilians. It's mostly based on looks. Gun rights advocates mostly try to stay away from "assault weapon" terminology because it is not defined. Military weapons are usually full auto or select fire. The "military style" weapons produced for civilian use are semi-auto only. Now, you must also be aware, that we, in anti-gun IL, have been led to believe that full auto arms are illegal for civilian ownership. NOT TRUE!!! Something like 38 states allow thier citizens to own and use full-auto firearms under the provisions of Federal Law. Sound suppressors are also allowed in many states, in fact, I looked at one in MO just a few weeks ago. Anyone with any kind of Federal license can buy and own a suppressor in MO. So, all you folks with C&R license can go to MO and buy a suppressor. Of course, you'll have to leave it in MO, but you'll own it. Again, it's the liberals trying to regulate and legislate against OBJECTS rather than use discipline to discourage criminal activity by the INDIVIDUAL. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted January 17, 2009 at 05:34 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 05:34 PM Here are 2 examples of what the anti-rights legislators do! This pic was part of Rep Kathy Ryg's campaign lit 2 yrs ago. Make sure you read what it says...and you do recognize what her lit would lead the reader to believe to be an "assault rifle...legal for purchase in Illinois" don't you? This pic was in Rep Naomi Jakobbson's campaign flier. Notice the little card under the firearm on the right! Jakobbson is/was the sponser of the ammo encoding bill presented in the House last Spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YASLIFF Posted January 17, 2009 at 06:05 PM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 06:05 PM ??????????? How about DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAWSummary: • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. • For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. It's a stretch but sounds pretty impressive. Common usage In Heller SCOTUS terms, Aren't and the police are running around with (Semi) ar 15's, mini 14's HK's n' such. and "Standard capacity magazines" not reduced capacity magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:29 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:29 AM Can we sue these guys for treason? They swear to uphold both Illinois and the Federal Constitution yet they cannot seem to understand the intent or what the word infringe means.I think this was a dream I too had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted August 31, 2009 at 03:22 AM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 03:22 AM .50 caliber !! Those are the 'bad' guns, aren't they? Surely, after .50s are banned, society will have all the "common sense" gun laws we need to protect the collective, right? My .45 is just a peace keeper, not a terrorist weapon. And my .357, that's OK, right? And my 9mm, that's a safe gun isn't it? Wait, maybe they're saying that none of my guns are safe. That's really their point, isn't it? Guns are dangerous and ownership should be limited to law enforcement and the military. Isn't that really their goal? .50 is a good first step for them. They are rare, nobody will complain and it will be another brick in the wall to eliminate individual ownership of guns. That's good right? Because guns never protect law abiding citizens and do not serve as a check on government power. ****sigh**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted August 31, 2009 at 03:42 AM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 03:42 AM howard -- take a deep breath and relax. We beat it. Coach -- do you still have a copy of that mail piece. I could use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted August 31, 2009 at 06:32 PM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 06:32 PM howard -- take a deep breath and relax. We beat it. Coach -- do you still have a copy of that mail piece. I could use it. Ryg's was a 4-panel flyer. I scanned each panel and saved each of the 4 as a pic.Naomi Baby's was a 2-panel. Did the same thing. What would you like to have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted August 31, 2009 at 07:50 PM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 07:50 PM LOL he was a little late on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted August 31, 2009 at 10:16 PM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 10:16 PM Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately. So does this mean registration? And what's the definition of Large Capacity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted August 31, 2009 at 10:18 PM Share Posted August 31, 2009 at 10:18 PM And what's the definition of Large Capacity? Over 10 rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted September 1, 2009 at 04:36 PM Share Posted September 1, 2009 at 04:36 PM Coach -- I hae the Ryg one. I would like the other one. yas yes the bill would mean registration and anything over 10 rounds in a high cap mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted September 1, 2009 at 05:31 PM Share Posted September 1, 2009 at 05:31 PM I ain't registering or turning in anything. If they want what I have they can come and get it. In fact I think I will go out and buy a couple more high capacity mags for my 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted September 1, 2009 at 06:02 PM Share Posted September 1, 2009 at 06:02 PM Coach -- I hae the Ryg one. I would like the other one. Sent as PM attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted September 1, 2009 at 08:58 PM Share Posted September 1, 2009 at 08:58 PM edit:original author deleted commentary without pursuasiondon't want to educate the airheads.... WE have some real airheads writing these things... GLAD IT'S A DEAD BILL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted September 2, 2009 at 01:06 AM Share Posted September 2, 2009 at 01:06 AM Guys -- this bill was a hopped up McCarthy style semi-auto ban. The way they screw this stuff up makes it easier for us to kill. I'm glad they don't know anything about guns or how stuff works in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted September 2, 2009 at 03:57 AM Share Posted September 2, 2009 at 03:57 AM Guys -- this bill was a hopped up McCarthy style semi-auto ban. The way they screw this stuff up makes it easier for us to kill. I'm glad they don't know anything about guns or how stuff works in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 12, 2010 at 11:53 PM Share Posted January 12, 2010 at 11:53 PM Guys -- this bill was a hopped up McCarthy style semi-auto ban. The way they screw this stuff up makes it easier for us to kill. I'm glad they don't know anything about guns or how stuff works in the real world. So this comes back to haunt us anyways? Should we start writing letters tot the cosponsors of this stupid bill or is it dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted January 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM Guys -- this bill was a hopped up McCarthy style semi-auto ban. The way they screw this stuff up makes it easier for us to kill. I'm glad they don't know anything about guns or how stuff works in the real world. So this comes back to haunt us anyways? Should we start writing letters tot the cosponsors of this stupid bill or is it dead? Sigma ... that bill is dead. It's a new legislative session now. Don't worry about this one. They will soon introduce another one, that will get as far as this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted January 13, 2010 at 12:58 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 12:58 AM When the next one comes--and it will--we should make it clear that it will be challenged in court immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted January 13, 2010 at 01:07 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 01:07 AM When the next one comes--and it will--we should make it clear that it will be challenged in court immediately. Well ... at least make it clear that an incorporation ruling in McDonald would subject it to court challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1957Human Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:08 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:08 AM Sigma ... that bill is dead. It's a new legislative session now. Don't worry about this one. They will soon introduce another one, that will get as far as this one. Understandable presumption, but Gen a** sessions are two years, not one. And bills don't sine die of their own accord until the end of the second session. We're just now beginning the second session of the 96th Gen. Assem. (tomorrow, I think). Bills introduced during a session of the 96th (2009-10) won't "sine die" until Jan. 2011. Until then, all pending bills are still alive, unless killed according to another rule. Take a looks at some public acts from the 95th Session and you'll see where many were introduced in '07 that weren't enrolled until late '08. Didn't this bill get sent back to the Rules Committee? If so, it's not dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:21 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:21 AM Thanks for clarifying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:23 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:23 AM Sigma ... that bill is dead. It's a new legislative session now. Don't worry about this one. They will soon introduce another one, that will get as far as this one. Understandable presumption, but Gen a** sessions are two years, not one. And bills don't sine die of their own accord until the end of the second session. We're just now beginning the second session of the 96th Gen. Assem. (tomorrow, I think). Bills introduced during a session of the 96th (2009-10) won't "sine die" until Jan. 2011. Until then, all pending bills are still alive, unless killed according to another rule. Take a looks at some public acts from the 95th Session and you'll see where many were introduced in '07 that weren't enrolled until late '08. Didn't this bill get sent back to the Rules Committee? If so, it's not dead. I had a whole big post made, but you seem to be beyond the basics a little. Yes, while it's still in rules, it's technically still alive. But, it must be re-assigned to a substantive committee by the Rules and start over again. A bill that's listed as "re-assigned to Rules" or Assignments in May or June of '09 is not much of a threat. By the way, the second session started today, continues tomorrow and Thurs and then they are recessed until after the primary. Not much going to get done until after the primary. AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:28 AM Share Posted January 13, 2010 at 02:28 AM How will Mcdonald affect this if it does gets passed?IF a court ruling will have an affect then shouldnt the Cook county AWB be over turned as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.