Summarize SB1657 please...

[powderhead]

I have read most of what has been recently written here about SB1657, but I am left a little confused as to where we currently stand with this legislation. Could someone knowledgeable on the topic give a brief summary of what is happening, and what you expect will happen.

 

 

[InterestedBystander]

Not that I'm the most knowledgeable, but...

 

It's waiting to be called for a debate and vote in the House after passing the Senate with minimum number of votes necessary. (Thanks Sen Rooney and IFMA! <-- sarcasm)

 

It appears they do not have the votes at this time to pass.

 

The deadline date did get extended as the House can be called back during June.

 

5/31/2017 House Final Action Deadline Extended-9( June 30, 2017

 

It's a flawed bill and they probably won't amend for fear they can't get the Senate votes to pass again on concurrence with changes.

 

Can they get the votes? Im sure they are wheeling and dealing. Sounds like it may be difficult to get enough voting members to appear on days if they are called back to session.

 

Bill on life support:

http://www.gunssavelife.com/illinois-dodges-bulletfor-now-gun-dealer-licensing-life-support/

[skinnyb82]

I'll summarize it with one word: unconstitutional.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Frank]

I'll summarize it with one word: unconstitutional. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

I was going to go with, "Guns are bad, mmm-kay?"

 

But your summarization works too. :-)

 

 

-- Frank

[ScottFM]

As a liberal, I of course was exposed to a lot of the supporters of this bill. Several of them I had some really good conversations with, I did not change the most strident of its supporters. But I did have several people tell me that they enjoyed the respectful tone that I and the bill supporters had when discussing it. I also had a couple tell me that they withheld their support because once some of the details were explained they were not sold on the idea that the bill would accomplish anything to make life any safer.

 

You can win support when you have a reasoned and polite discussion and stop talking like a lunatic about how 'liberals are gonna tak' mah guns!" :-)

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

[ScottFM]

 

I'll summarize it with one word: unconstitutional. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

I was going to go with, "Guns are bad, mmm-kay?"

 

But your summarization works too. :-)

 

 

-- Frank

 

Friendly amendment:

"Gun shops are bad, mm-kay"

[DD123]

As a liberal, I of course was exposed to a lot of the supporters of this bill. Several of them I had some really good conversations with, I did not change the most strident of its supporters. But I did have several people tell me that they enjoyed the respectful tone that I and the bill supporters had when discussing it. I also had a couple tell me that they withheld their support because once some of the details were explained they were not sold on the idea that the bill would accomplish anything to make life any safer.

 

You can win support when you have a reasoned and polite discussion and stop talking like a lunatic about how 'liberals are gonna tak' mah guns!" :-)

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

So basically we just do the exact opposite of your broad brush strokes you've painted everyone on this forum with?

[markthesignguy]

Establishing a "star chamber" with a 20% gun grabber and 0% pro gun advocacy opposition

consisting of individuals

appointed by the Illinois Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation (itself an appointed position?)

and giving it a blank check to do darn much anything it pleases

to harass and destroy FFL's across Illinois.

[JDW]

Establishing a "star chamber" with a 20% gun grabber and 0% pro gun advocacy opposition

consisting of individuals

appointed by the Illinois Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation (itself an appointed position?)

and giving it a blank check to do darn much anything it pleases

to harass and destroy FFL's across Illinois.

 

Nicely stated, Mark.

[ScottFM]

 

As a liberal, I of course was exposed to a lot of the supporters of this bill. Several of them I had some really good conversations with, I did not change the most strident of its supporters. But I did have several people tell me that they enjoyed the respectful tone that I and the bill supporters had when discussing it. I also had a couple tell me that they withheld their support because once some of the details were explained they were not sold on the idea that the bill would accomplish anything to make life any safer.

 

You can win support when you have a reasoned and polite discussion and stop talking like a lunatic about how 'liberals are gonna tak' mah guns!" :-)

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

So basically we just do the exact opposite of your broad brush strokes you've painted everyone on this forum with?

 

No offense, I meant towards that enjoy to paint with broad brushes, not a man as powerful, intelligent and eloquent as yourself! :-)

[DD123]

 

 

As a liberal, I of course was exposed to a lot of the supporters of this bill. Several of them I had some really good conversations with, I did not change the most strident of its supporters. But I did have several people tell me that they enjoyed the respectful tone that I and the bill supporters had when discussing it. I also had a couple tell me that they withheld their support because once some of the details were explained they were not sold on the idea that the bill would accomplish anything to make life any safer.

 

You can win support when you have a reasoned and polite discussion and stop talking like a lunatic about how 'liberals are gonna tak' mah guns!" :-)

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

So basically we just do the exact opposite of your broad brush strokes you've painted everyone on this forum with?

 

No offense, I meant towards that enjoy to paint with broad brushes, not a man as powerful, intelligent and eloquent as yourself! :-)

 

You can make as many elitist, snide remarks towards me as you'd like, but it won't change your comment, nor would it change the fact that if we were at a bar face to face, you would take a MUCH different tact, so why do it online? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Pump up your ego a bit?

 

But I digress...

 

Getting back to your comment, a serious question for you:

 

Do you believe that the people who post on this forum, who also use the term liberal, also use it in person when discussing guns, or whatever with a liberal? I'm interested in learning more about your perception on this.

[ScottFM]

 

 

So basically we just do the exact opposite of your broad brush strokes you've painted everyone on this forum with?

 

 

 

No offense, I meant towards that enjoy to paint with broad brushes, not a man as powerful, intelligent and eloquent as yourself! :-)

 

You can make as many elitist, snide remarks towards me as you'd like, but it won't change your comment, nor would it change the fact that if we were at a bar face to face, you would take a MUCH different tact, so why do it online? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Pump up your ego a bit?

 

But I digress...

 

Getting back to your comment, a serious question for you:

 

Do you believe that the people who post on this forum, who also use the term liberal, also use it in person when discussing guns, or whatever with a liberal? I'm interested in learning more about your perception on this.

 

HOLY FRACK FRANCIS LIGHTEN UP!

 

I was trying to be nice, joke around, and accept your criticism. I would have said exactly what I said to you had we been face to face, maybe you would have caught the smiley and we would have had a laugh. I do not hide behind the keyboard and pretend to be a tough guy like what you are accusing some of the others on this forum.

 

And to answer your question, yes I do believe they use that term because I have heard said in public and at the range!

[Lou]

Off topic posts have been hidden.

 

This is certainly a subject we can discuss in a civil manner.

[DD123]

 

 

 

No offense, I meant towards that enjoy to paint with broad brushes, not a man as powerful, intelligent and eloquent as yourself! :-)

 

 

 

 

You can make as many elitist, snide remarks towards me as you'd like, but it won't change your comment, nor would it change the fact that if we were at a bar face to face, you would take a MUCH different tact, so why do it online? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Pump up your ego a bit?

 

But I digress...

 

Getting back to your comment, a serious question for you:

 

Do you believe that the people who post on this forum, who also use the term liberal, also use it in person when discussing guns, or whatever with a liberal? I'm interested in learning more about your perception on this.

 

HOLY FRACK FRANCIS LIGHTEN UP!

 

I was trying to be nice, joke around, and accept your criticism.

 

And to answer your question, yes I do believe they use that term because I have heard said in public and at the range!

 

So at a range, where the likelihood of running into a liberal is about the same as running into a conservative in a gender studies program, is where you've heard people saying the word "liberal"?

 

You still avoided my question though and answered it like a politician.

 

I can honestly say that I've never once heard a liberal and conservative talking about guns, or whatever the topic, and the conservative turn around and say something to the effect of "well that's cuz ur a liberal". Never, not even once. I've seen friends who may vote for different parties joke around with one another, but never in a serious manner.

 

Sure you see it online, and even here at times, but in person in a place other than at a rally/protest, I can't say that I have heard that. Generally I've seen discussions where both sides present their views, and then discuss them much like your story.

 

My cousins wife is a liberal, and I've called her that mainly to get under her skin because during an actual discussion on guns, she stuck her fingers in her ears and said "la la la NRA NRA blah blah". I waited until her fingers came out of her ears and then called her a liberal, along with some other choice adjectives. There are many more examples of me arguing with her, and they all usually end on the same note. But, she's legitimately disturbed (on meds), and when she goes on her rants, I've usually had a few drinks and enjoy poking the bear lol.

 

My problem is with painting everyone with a broad brush, regardless of which team they support. Most members here, at least I'd like to believe only use the term online and don't do so in person.....like a discussion with their neighbor. Hey neighbor, well ur a liberal!!!! I highly doubt anyone on here does that.

[Buzzard]

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

Scott, if you're looking for a reasoned debate on guns laws, let me offer one. Where cities HAVE outlawed guns, how many reduced crime? ZERO! In fact, they became the most dangeous cities in the country! There are darn few solutions to a problem that take a prohibition approach. Do liberals advocate banning cell phones to stop texting while driving? Well, why not? Do liberals advocate banning beer, wine and liquor to stop drunk driving? Well, why not? They seem to think that banning the possession of guns will stop crime when it has been tried by Chicago, New York and Washington DC and failed miserably!!

 

The one thing they haven't tried is imprisoning violent criminals! They continually let them walk free by giving them probation! Gun offenders seldom see one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders? Should we just let those that prey on little children roam the streets along with the repeat gun offenders? Well, why not?

[mikew]

As a liberal, I of course was exposed to a lot of the supporters of this bill. Several of them I had some really good conversations with, I did not change the most strident of its supporters. But I did have several people tell me that they enjoyed the respectful tone that I and the bill supporters had when discussing it. I also had a couple tell me that they withheld their support because once some of the details were explained they were not sold on the idea that the bill would accomplish anything to make life any safer.

 

You can win support when you have a reasoned and polite discussion and stop talking like a lunatic about how 'liberals are gonna tak' mah guns!" :-)

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

But apparently you drank some of their kool-aid, you told us about the shops like Chuck's that are horrible, but when called on it, never told us why the shops are horrible.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=65539&page=3&do=findComment&comment=1082274

[ScottFM]

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

Scott, if you're looking for a reasoned debate on guns laws, let me offer one. Where cities HAVE outlawed guns, how many reduced crime? ZERO! In fact, they became the most dangeous cities in the country! There are darn few solutions to a problem that take a prohibition approach. Do liberals advocate banning cell phones to stop texting while driving? Well, why not? Do liberals advocate banning beer, wine and liquor to stop drunk driving? Well, why not? They seem to think that banning the possession of guns will stop crime when it has been tried by Chicago, New York and Washington DC and failed miserably!!

 

The one thing they haven't tried is imprisoning violent criminals! They continually let them walk free by giving them probation! Gun offenders seldom see one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders? Should we just let those that prey on little children roam the streets along with the repeat gun offenders? Well, why not?

 

I hear you. But it isn't an argument that is working, especially when you consider how many people in the US are incarcerated! So many that we cannot even make room for the more we need. The problem isn't guns as much as it is about how we as a culture use violence as a solution to a problem. Conflict resolution in our society is to shoot, stab, beat, kick *****, etc. Whatever term you want, the bottom idea is that violence will solve it.

 

How do we solve that fundamental problem? Beats me. In the meantime how do we keep people who are really unable to control themselves from hurting others? Again, beats me. We can't put everyone in jail and we take all the guns away either. Those are not real solutions. So when discussing it isn't one argument, but discussion that can help.

 

And really, "one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders" No one advocates for that. You are just making BS up and that isn't helpful at all.

[mauserme]

I have read most of what has been recently written here about SB1657, but I am left a little confused as to where we currently stand with this legislation. Could someone knowledgeable on the topic give a brief summary of what is happening, and what you expect will happen.

Sooo, if everyone is willing to take a hint about keeping this thread on topic....

 

IllinoisCarry is still adamantly opposed to this bill, as are all the pro-gun groups in the state.

 

As InterestedBystander mentioned this bill, and all bills still on the House Calendar when they adjourned on 5/31/2017, has had its 3rd reading deadline extended to 6/30/2017. That doesn't mean anything special about SB1657 other than we'll be keeping a close watch on it a little longer into summer than we otherwise would have. Even without the extension it would have been a renewed threat in the Fall Veto Session.

 

The bill has problems. Not just for us but for some of the legislators you might categorize as leaning anti-gun. Because of that they haven't had the votes they need. Time will tell if they can find them, but it grows more difficult as whatever momentum they had, real or contrived, fades.

 

One thing's for sure. We won't be letting it of of our sight.

[quackersmacker]

Thanks for the update, Mauser!

[BobPistol]

Cronies get enriched.

 

The people get screwed.

 

Big time.

[JDW]

Thanks Mauser

[ScottFM]

 

I have read most of what has been recently written here about SB1657, but I am left a little confused as to where we currently stand with this legislation. Could someone knowledgeable on the topic give a brief summary of what is happening, and what you expect will happen.

Sooo, if everyone is willing to take a hint about keeping this thread on topic....

 

IllinoisCarry is still adamantly opposed to this bill, as are all the pro-gun groups in the state.

 

As InterestedBystander mentioned this bill, and all bills still on the House Calendar when they adjourned on 5/31/2017, has had its 3rd reading deadline extended to 6/30/2017. That doesn't mean anything special about SB1657 other than we'll be keeping a close watch on it a little longer into summer than we otherwise would have. Even without the extension it would have been a renewed threat in the Fall Veto Session.

 

The bill has problems. Not just for us but for some of the legislators you might categorize as leaning anti-gun. Because of that they haven't had the votes they need. Time will tell if they can find them, but it grows more difficult as whatever momentum they had, real or contrived, fades.

 

One thing's for sure. We won't be letting it of of our sight.

 

Thanks!

 

My point earlier was that this bill needs all the help it can get to not pass. There are legislators that are one the fence and we should be doing everything to pull those in that normally are not all the passionate about this topic. To do that we can get them far more easy with sugar than with vinegar.

[bear226]

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

Scott, if you're looking for a reasoned debate on guns laws, let me offer one. Where cities HAVE outlawed guns, how many reduced crime? ZERO! In fact, they became the most dangeous cities in the country! There are darn few solutions to a problem that take a prohibition approach. Do liberals advocate banning cell phones to stop texting while driving? Well, why not? Do liberals advocate banning beer, wine and liquor to stop drunk driving? Well, why not? They seem to think that banning the possession of guns will stop crime when it has been tried by Chicago, New York and Washington DC and failed miserably!!

 

The one thing they haven't tried is imprisoning violent criminals! They continually let them walk free by giving them probation! Gun offenders seldom see one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders? Should we just let those that prey on little children roam the streets along with the repeat gun offenders? Well, why not?

 

All I can say is thank Buzzard for putting him straight. He says he likes his guns as a lib but agrees with SB1657 makes no sense to me. Trying to keep this civil I will make no further comments. And I don't post often but I read.

[mauserme]

Thanks!

 

My point earlier was that this bill needs all the help it can get to not pass. There are legislators that are one the fence and we should be doing everything to pull those in that normally are not all the passionate about this topic. To do that we can get them far more easy with sugar than with vinegar.

 

I think you've chosen to be a member here because, as a group, that's already who we are.

[cls74]

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

Scott, if you're looking for a reasoned debate on guns laws, let me offer one. Where cities HAVE outlawed guns, how many reduced crime? ZERO! In fact, they became the most dangeous cities in the country! There are darn few solutions to a problem that take a prohibition approach. Do liberals advocate banning cell phones to stop texting while driving? Well, why not? Do liberals advocate banning beer, wine and liquor to stop drunk driving? Well, why not? They seem to think that banning the possession of guns will stop crime when it has been tried by Chicago, New York and Washington DC and failed miserably!!

 

The one thing they haven't tried is imprisoning violent criminals! They continually let them walk free by giving them probation! Gun offenders seldom see one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders? Should we just let those that prey on little children roam the streets along with the repeat gun offenders? Well, why not?

You Sir, are my voice on this topic. I do not think it could be stated any plainer or clearer.

[Buzzard]

 

I hear you. But it isn't an argument that is working, especially when you consider how many people in the US are incarcerated! So many that we cannot even make room for the more we need. The problem isn't guns as much as it is about how we as a culture use violence as a solution to a problem. Conflict resolution in our society is to shoot, stab, beat, kick *****, etc. Whatever term you want, the bottom idea is that violence will solve it.

 

How do we solve that fundamental problem? Beats me. In the meantime how do we keep people who are really unable to control themselves from hurting others? Again, beats me. We can't put everyone in jail and we take all the guns away either. Those are not real solutions. So when discussing it isn't one argument, but discussion that can help.

 

And really, "one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders" No one advocates for that. You are just making BS up and that isn't helpful at all.

 

 

What I'm saying is the wrong people are being incarcerated in the city. You have judges that continually give probation to individuals that are illegally in possession of guns. Not only do they not have FOID cards, they have priors that would disqualify them from getting a FOID card! How is it these individuals deserve to receive probation? And these same judges will sentence a basically honest, law abiding citizen to a jail term because their gun wasn't properly cased. Or they are from Indiana where it's been legal to carry a handgun for DECADES, but they are in violation of the law because they inadvertently crossed the state line and were pulled over for some minor thing. Why are these judges jailing good, honest people and giving probation to individuals that think nothing about shooting each other over an argument at a family picnic?!

[TomKoz]

Because the good honest folks that get tripped up don't vote Democrat !!

[markthesignguy]

ScottFM: the "horrrible" Chuck's guns underwent a very hostile BATFE compliance examination fishing expedition last November -

probably as a favor to Rahm Emmanuel by the outgoing administration when it would no longer affect the election.

 

They had TEN agents combing through Chuck's records with a fine tooth comb for three weeks - utterly unprecedented.

They found NOTHING WRONG. Considering the past volumes of Chuck's sales that were examined,

it is proof that Chuck's is and has ALWAYS been a "good apple".

 

Our legislators conveniently overlook the FACT that there is a TIME GAP of over TEN YEARS on average between a lawful

sale of a particular firearm, and it's recovery in connection with a crime.

 

Our legislators conveniently overlook that the four closest gun stores to Chicago account for an overwhelming majority of the LAWFULLY

Purchased Firearms found in the city, now and even back when people operated on the "judged by 12 instead of carried by 6" principle.

And thus are those most likely to be stolen in the city.

 

Our legislators conveniently also overlook that when a miracle happens and a stupid STRAW PURCHASER is actually apprehended and charged,

and CONVICTED, they get slaps on the wrist. Not the teeth that are provided for in various Federal Laws.

[ScottFM]

 

 

There will always be extreme views on both sides of an issue. But I know so many of us on the left that have guns and enjoy shooting and really do not support the anti's agenda. But also are open to actual useful laws that make sense, if any were ever to be proposed. Mostly we are just flabbergasted that the conversations cannot happen because of all the spittle and bile that is flung about from both sides.

 

Scott, if you're looking for a reasoned debate on guns laws, let me offer one. Where cities HAVE outlawed guns, how many reduced crime? ZERO! In fact, they became the most dangeous cities in the country! There are darn few solutions to a problem that take a prohibition approach. Do liberals advocate banning cell phones to stop texting while driving? Well, why not? Do liberals advocate banning beer, wine and liquor to stop drunk driving? Well, why not? They seem to think that banning the possession of guns will stop crime when it has been tried by Chicago, New York and Washington DC and failed miserably!!

 

The one thing they haven't tried is imprisoning violent criminals! They continually let them walk free by giving them probation! Gun offenders seldom see one day of incarceration! Is that what liberals advocate for rapists and sex offenders? Should we just let those that prey on little children roam the streets along with the repeat gun offenders? Well, why not?

 

All I can say is thank Buzzard for putting him straight. He says he likes his guns as a lib but agrees with SB1657 makes no sense to me. Trying to keep this civil I will make no further comments. And I don't post often but I read.

 

I've never said I agree with SB1657. Infact I have talked about useless and stupid it is. Please don't lie.

[TomKoz]

Was stating that Chucks is "horrible" a lie?