mauserme Posted September 29, 2021 at 06:02 PM Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 at 06:02 PM On 9/28/2021 at 8:34 PM, Euler said: HB4156 And, it's added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted September 29, 2021 at 09:55 PM Share Posted September 29, 2021 at 09:55 PM On 9/28/2021 at 8:34 PM, Euler said: HB4156 "Strict liability" is a legal term that means intent (mens rea) is not required to define a crime. So anyone who gets shot by a gang member that sprays a neighborhood with bullets can "collect 10K" from the FFL, imported, and manufacturer, but not the sprayer of bullets? The name of the bill "Protecting Heartbeats " is pure hypocrisy, given the nature of other "things" they allow to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 29, 2021 at 10:11 PM Share Posted September 29, 2021 at 10:11 PM On 9/29/2021 at 5:55 PM, mab22 said: On 9/28/2021 at 9:34 PM, Euler said: HB4156 "Strict liability" is a legal term that means intent (mens rea) is not required to define a crime. So anyone who gets shot by a gang member that sprays a neighborhood with bullets can "collect 10K" from the FFL, imported, and manufacturer, but not the sprayer of bullets? The name of the bill "Protecting Heartbeats" is pure hypocrisy, given the nature of other "things" they allow to be done. "Protecting Heartbeats" is a reference to the TX abortion bill. Like the TX bill, it's not the person who got shot who can sue. Specifically, people who were NOT harmed can sue the gun shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted September 30, 2021 at 02:46 AM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 02:46 AM On 9/29/2021 at 5:11 PM, Euler said: "Protecting Heartbeats" is a reference to the TX abortion bill. Like the TX bill, it's not the person who got shot who can sue. Specifically, people who were NOT harmed can sue the gun shop. What a CROCK !! Sounds like IL-ANNOY politicians in not placing BLAME where it belongs !! 🤢 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 30, 2021 at 03:12 AM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 03:12 AM On 9/29/2021 at 10:46 PM, JTHunter said: On 9/29/2021 at 6:11 PM, Euler said: "Protecting Heartbeats" is a reference to the TX abortion bill. Like the TX bill, it's not the person who got shot who can sue. Specifically, people who were NOT harmed can sue the gun shop. What a CROCK !! Sounds like IL-ANNOY politicians in not placing BLAME where it belongs !! 🤢 As I said, the IL bill is like the TX law. In both TX and (proposed) IL, people utterly uninvolved can sue the business/individual providing the service in dispute. TX has opened a Pandora''s box. If there's to be an argument that strikes one down, it would strike both down, but it looks like it's not going to be a constitutional argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cope Posted September 30, 2021 at 05:34 AM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 05:34 AM One major difference is that its easy to find out which doctors are performing abortions, its not so easy to know where someone bought a specific gun. This would imply that the government would have to be involved in the lawsuit, thereby making it different than the TX abortion law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted September 30, 2021 at 02:16 PM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 02:16 PM On 9/30/2021 at 12:34 AM, cope said: One major difference is that its easy to find out which doctors are performing abortions, its not so easy to know where someone bought a specific gun. This would imply that the government would have to be involved in the lawsuit, thereby making it different than the TX abortion law. Even more to the point (and I want to preface that the lawsuit crap added to the TX bill was ill-advised and stupid imho), it differs on fundamental basis. The Tx bill outlaws a service/procedure what have, you THEN allows for suit against those that provide said service, or aids and abetts. EVEN in it's absurdly broad definition of those that qualify, nowhere does it allow for suit against the manufacturer, sellers or similar of any tools used for said service. But, that is exactly what this idiotic Illinois bill does. In fact, it is this exact aspect of the Tx law, that I, imho (IAMNAL) will get it, or that part struck down in the courts. Uber drivers? really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk5 Posted September 30, 2021 at 04:46 PM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 04:46 PM It is all unconstitutional and she knows it but pushing ahead anyway to tie up the courts. Chicago Dem introduces Gun Control modeled after Texas abortion bill... This didn't take long.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 30, 2021 at 07:26 PM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 07:26 PM On 9/30/2021 at 1:34 AM, cope said: One major difference is that its easy to find out which doctors are performing abortions, its not so easy to know where someone bought a specific gun. This would imply that the government would have to be involved in the lawsuit, thereby making it different than the TX abortion law. It's easy to find out which FFLs are doing transfers (pretty much all of them). Theoretically, medical privacy (even HIPAA) should prevent anyone else from finding out which doctors perform which abortions, if indeed anyone can prove an abortion took place. Both laws rely on someone violating privacy. On 9/30/2021 at 10:16 AM, cybermgk said: Even more to the point (and I want to preface that the lawsuit crap added to the TX bill was ill-advised and stupid imho), it differs on fundamental basis. The Tx bill outlaws a service/procedure what have, you THEN allows for suit against those that provide said service, or aids and abetts. EVEN in it's absurdly broad definition of those that qualify, nowhere does it allow for suit against the manufacturer, sellers or similar of any tools used for said service. But, that is exactly what this idiotic Illinois bill does. In fact, it is this exact aspect of the Tx law, that I, imho (IAMNAL) will get it, or that part struck down in the courts. Uber drivers? really? It's the sale/transfer of a firearm that's a service, not the manufacture of equipment. It's the performance of an abortion that's a service, not the manufacture of equipment. Both laws are stupid. Escalating the stupidity is not the solution to stupidity. Whoever wrote the TX law identified a problem in the US legal system. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they decided to use it to start a fire to burn the country down. Substitute any other legal, even protected, activity, and there can be a law that allows suing the requisite providers. (Remember, you don't pass laws. Legislators do, everywhere.) Someone doesn't like your practice of religion? They can sue your church. Someone doesn't like your speech? They can sue your soapbox, megaphone, copy machine, pen/paper, composition software, etc., vendors or radio/TV stations that report it. Someone doesn't like that you use a maid service to clean your house? They can sue the maid service. Someone doesn't like that you even own a house? They can sue the title transfer provider. In a developed civilization, even a socialist one, virtually every activity anyone does involves purchasing a good or service from someone at some point. No one but hermits make everything they have from raw materials they collect themselves or performs labor for only their own benefit. A society in which individuals have no economic interaction with each other and interact only with the state is no society at all. Economy is not the same as culture, but every culture has an economy. The IL bill, however, is obviously retaliation for the TX law, which makes it misdirected. First, retaliation is childish and counter-productive in pretty much any situation. Second, IL FFLs did not write, sponsor, support, pass, or sign the TX law. Driving IL FFLs out of business isn't going to change TX law. It's just tribal warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted September 30, 2021 at 11:42 PM Share Posted September 30, 2021 at 11:42 PM On 9/30/2021 at 2:26 PM, Euler said: First, retaliation is childish and counter-productive in pretty much any situation.. Pretty much ANYTHING that comes out of Springfield is counter-productive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 8, 2021 at 04:08 PM Author Share Posted October 8, 2021 at 04:08 PM HB4166 Crim Cd - Pepper Spray - Age was filed today, exempting a person of any age from a UUW violation. The exemption was previously limited to persons age 18 or older. I'll add this to our neutral list so we can keep an eye it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 13, 2021 at 06:16 PM Author Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 06:16 PM The package of crime bills introduced by Senator Rose was filed today. I've add those on which we've taken a position: Neutral SB2917 Cd Corr – Contraband Penal Inst SB2927 ICJIA – Firearm Crimes Oppose SB2920 Bail – Release – Firearm Offenses SB2921 Crim Pro – Categaroy A Offense SB2925 Crim Cd- Firearms – Felons SB2926 Firearm Crime Charge & Sentence SB2928 Crim Cd - Firearms Penalties SB2929 Juv Ct – Commitment Until 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted October 13, 2021 at 07:10 PM Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 07:10 PM On 10/13/2021 at 1:16 PM, mauserme said: The package of crime bills introduced by Senator Rose was filed today. I've add those on which we've taken a position: Neutral SB2917 Cd Corr – Contraband Penal Inst SB2927 ICJIA – Firearm Crimes Oppose SB2920 Bail – Release – Firearm Offenses SB2921 Crim Pro – Categaroy A Offense SB2925 Crim Cd- Firearms – Felons SB2926 Firearm Crime Charge & Sentence SB2928 Crim Cd - Firearms Penalties SB2929 Juv Ct – Commitment Until 21 Do you purposely try and make things harder to read using some of the different views in this “new and improved” interface?? Posting dark fonts is not helpful with dark backgrounds…. Just sayin’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 13, 2021 at 07:18 PM Author Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 07:18 PM On 10/13/2021 at 2:10 PM, Tip said: Do you purposely try and make things harder to read using some of the different views in this “new and improved” interface?? Posting dark fonts is not helpful with dark backgrounds…. Just sayin’ I'm still learning how to format this in the new system. I'll see what I can do to make that more usable in a dark theme tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted October 13, 2021 at 08:05 PM Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 08:05 PM Thanks Mauser! It’s been difficult on all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted October 13, 2021 at 10:15 PM Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 10:15 PM On 10/13/2021 at 2:10 PM, Tip said: Do you purposely try and make things harder to read using some of the different views in this “new and improved” interface?? Posting dark fonts is not helpful with dark backgrounds…. Just sayin’ After all the hard work Mauser does, it is very unkind to ask such a question. It would be more helpful to just start with your second statement and let it go at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted October 13, 2021 at 11:20 PM Share Posted October 13, 2021 at 11:20 PM On 10/13/2021 at 2:18 PM, mauserme said: I'm still learning how to format this in the new system. I'll see what I can do to make that more usable in a dark theme tonight. Just a suggestion, I didn't even look at the dark I don't know if you tweaking colors or actually format look changes (that's a .. ) Anyhow do you know anyone else using this forum software so you can see what others have done and see if you can ask for a grab if you see anything interesting. There's a lot, beside the public ones available, of that going on in the BB3 world. I despise having to touch theme's. There's the default and use at your own risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 14, 2021 at 12:43 AM Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 at 12:43 AM On 10/13/2021 at 3:05 PM, Tip said: Thanks Mauser! It’s been difficult on all of us. It looks like it's working now in both light and dark themes on my end. See what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted October 14, 2021 at 01:01 AM Share Posted October 14, 2021 at 01:01 AM On 10/13/2021 at 7:43 PM, mauserme said: It looks like it's working now in both light and dark themes on my end. See what you think. Looks good. Thanks for your efforts. And, perhaps an apology is in order. Bad day here and perhaps a snap instead of a comment went out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 14, 2021 at 02:43 AM Author Share Posted October 14, 2021 at 02:43 AM On 10/13/2021 at 8:01 PM, Tip said: Looks good. Thanks for your efforts. And, perhaps an apology is in order. Bad day here and perhaps a snap instead of a comment went out. Its all good. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 19, 2021 at 06:27 PM Author Share Posted October 19, 2021 at 06:27 PM I've added a couple legislative actions to the list of items we're watching: AM1020257 Appoint – Christopher Patterson Synopsis As Introduced Nominates Christopher Patterson as Assistant Secretary of Firearm Violence Prevention for the Illinois Department of Human Services. HB4182 Workplace Violence Prevention Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Workplace Violence Prevention Act. Expands the purpose of the Act to include assisting employees in protecting themselves from unlawful violence and harassment at the workplace because of an employee's employment duties or place of employment. Expands the definition of "petitioner" to include an employee. Provides that an employer may seek a workplace protection restraining order to prohibit further violence or threats of violence by a respondent if: (i) an employee believes that the respondent has made a credible threat of violence to be carried out against the employee outside of the workplace because of the employee's employment duties or place of employment; or (ii) the respondent has made a credible threat of violence at the workplace against an employee, customer, or guest. Permits an employee to obtain a workplace restraining order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 22, 2021 at 08:02 PM Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 at 08:02 PM HB4190 Crim Law – Enforce & Prosecute was filed this afternoon. Like SB2928 Crim Cd - Firearms Penalties, it's been added to the list of bills we oppose. Synopsis As Introduced Creates the Firearm Crime Charging and Sentencing Accountability and Transparency Act. Provides that in a criminal case, if a defendant is charged with an offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm and subsequently enters into a plea agreement in which in the charge will be reduced to a lesser offense or a non-weapons offense in exchange for a plea of guilty, at or before the time of sentencing, the State's Attorney shall file with the court a written statement of his or her reasons in support of the plea agreement, which shall specifically state why the offense or offenses of conviction resulting from the plea agreement do not include the originally charged weapons offense. Provides that in a criminal case in which the original charge is or was for an offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm, if a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty of the original charge or lesser offense or a non-weapons offense, in imposing sentence, the judge shall set forth in a written sentencing order his or her reasons for imposing the sentence or accepting the plea agreement. Amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Provides for adult prosecution of a minor who was at least 16 years of age at the time of the offense who is charged with armed robbery or aggravated vehicular hijacking while armed with a firearm. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012 to provide for enhanced penalties for committing various offenses with a firearm. Makes other changes concerning criminal procedure and law enforcement. Amends various other Acts to make conforming changes. Effective immediately as to specified provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 23, 2021 at 05:17 PM Author Share Posted October 23, 2021 at 05:17 PM I've added HB2769 to this list of 2021 Veto Session bills we oppose. This one was on our radar in the Spring Session. It's a blatant attempt to get microstamping into Illinois law with incremental law enforcement/civilian mandates soon to follow. HB2769 Safety Tech (Microstamping) House Amendment 1 to HB2769 - Adopted Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Creates the Microstamping Funding Program Act. Defines terms. Provides that the State shall establish a grant program for law enforcement officers for microstamp-ready firearms. Provides that the grant program shall be administered by the Illinois State Police and the grant funds shall only be used for the purchase of microstamp-ready firearms by law enforcement agencies that are grant recipients. Provides for education and training in relation to the program, as well as for grant application and participation. Provides that the Illinois State Police shall collect certain data related to the program. Provides that any person who knowingly or intentionally changes, alters, removes or obliterates the name of the importer's or manufacturer's serial number or the microstamping mechanism of any firearm commits a Class 2 felony. Provides legislative findings. House Amendment 2 to HB2769 – Adopted Replaces references to the Illinois State Police with references to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. House Amendment 3 to HB2769 – Approved for Consideration Corrects drafting errors and removes a penalty provision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captdan Posted October 25, 2021 at 07:12 PM Share Posted October 25, 2021 at 07:12 PM Could you explain your reasoning to being opposed to HB 4190. Curious and thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 25, 2021 at 07:30 PM Share Posted October 25, 2021 at 07:30 PM On 10/25/2021 at 3:12 PM, captdan said: Could you explain your reasoning to being opposed to HB 4190. Curious and thank you. Consider this: If Illinois were a permitless carry state, how many of the proposed felonies would not even be misdemeanors? Criminalizing firearm possession is the opposite of 2A advocacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captdan Posted October 25, 2021 at 08:03 PM Share Posted October 25, 2021 at 08:03 PM Even when the possession is for for criminal activities? This is not for new criminalization of gun possession. This bill is to make sure those that are convicted of gun charges serve time for there crimes. I must be missing something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted October 25, 2021 at 10:41 PM Share Posted October 25, 2021 at 10:41 PM mauserme is sure to explain but in the meantime, IllinoisCarry has a fairly standard opposition to enhanced penalties for possession of a firearm - not the use of a firearm in a violent crime. It seems those penalties get prosecuted against gun owners but waived for violent criminals . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 26, 2021 at 12:04 AM Author Share Posted October 26, 2021 at 12:04 AM As Euler observed HB4190 addresses, in part, behavior that shouldn't be illegal making it harder, for example, for a prosecutor/judge to show lenience for simple administrative infractions. Keep in mind that unlawful use of a weapon in Illinois is primarily about the way in which a firearm is possessed. It has almost nothing to do with its use. The bill also requires the detention of people as young as 10 years old to be detained until a hearing can be held for some admittedly serious crimes, but the circumstances require that they only be charged. Those 13 years of age can be declared a ward of the court in some cases. Provisions like these ignore the fact that judges are co-equal elected officials, and ignore parental rights as well. And as Molly B mentioned, IllinoisCarry has historically opposed sentencing enhancements and mandatory minimum sentencing. In this bill, not only is sentencing enhanced but special classes of people whose lives the sponsor values more than others are created. Unlawful discharge of a firearm would be aggravated, for example, if done in the direction of persons under age 18 or over age 60, a veteran, is pregnant, is going to church or school, is on public transportation, etc. It's difficult to understand why people in these categories count more than, say, a 40 year guy driving himself to the store. If there are that many new special classes of people it might make sense to increase the penalty generally without singling out special classes (though we've opposed that approach as well). There's more, but that's the general idea. I've added a couple bills to our lists of legislation under review. HB2791 EPA – Clean Air Senate Amendment 1 to HB2791 Senate Amendment 2 to HB2791 Both amendments establish an Office of Firearm Violence Prevention with authority to provide grants for violence studies, and SB336 Redacted Certificate of Birth House Amendment 1 to SB336 which simply changes a due date on an already established violence study (among others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted October 28, 2021 at 12:13 AM Share Posted October 28, 2021 at 12:13 AM On 10/25/2021 at 7:04 PM, mauserme said: And as Molly B mentioned, IllinoisCarry has historically opposed sentencing enhancements and mandatory minimum sentencing. In this bill, not only is sentencing enhanced but special classes of people whose lives the sponsor values more than others are created. Unlawful discharge of a firearm would be aggravated, for example, if done in the direction of persons under age 18 or over age 60, a veteran, is pregnant, is going to church or school, is on public transportation, etc. It's difficult to understand why people in these categories count more than, say, a 40 year guy driving himself to the store. If there are that many new special classes of people it might make sense to increase the penalty generally without singling out special classes (though we've opposed that approach as well). Doesn't creating categories also violate the equal protections clause of Federal and State constitutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 28, 2021 at 09:13 PM Author Share Posted October 28, 2021 at 09:13 PM Senate Amendment 1 has been filed on HB716 Violence Reduction - Grant Fund. Adoption will remove the bill from our interest. Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Election Code. Provides that applicants for voter registration may select "male", "female", or "non-binary" when designating the applicant's sex on a voter registration form. Makes changes concerning 2022 general primary election and general election dates and signature requirements. Makes changes concerning election precincts. Provides that a polling place that is accessible to voters with disabilities and elderly voters shall include at least one voting booth that is wheelchair accessible. In provisions concerning limitations on campaign contributions for a candidate political committee for a candidate seeking nomination to the Supreme Court, Appellate Court, or Circuit Court, provides that the political committee may not accept contributions from any group that is not required by law to disclose the identity of its contributors or accept contributions from any out-of-state source. Provides that "contribution" includes expenditures made by any person in concert or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his or her designated committee, or their agents and the financing by any person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign materials prepared by the candidate, his or her campaign committee, or their designated agents. Prohibits the making and accepting of anonymous contributions. Provides that contributions made through dues, levies, or similar assessments paid by any natural person, corporation, labor organization, or association that exceed $1,000 (currently $500) in a quarterly reporting period shall be itemized on the political action committee's quarterly report. Makes other changes. Amends the Legislative Commission Reorganization Act of 1984. Makes changes concerning a prohibition on the Legislative Printing Unit printing newsletters or brochures for members of the General Assembly. Amends the Counties Code. In provisions concerning county apportionment commissions for the reapportionment of 2021, provides that the county board shall complete the reapportionment by December 31 (currently, the third Wednesday in November). Amends the Downstate Forest Preserve District Act. Provides that commissioners of a forest preserve district shall be elected from districts, as determined by the board of commissioners. Contains provisions concerning reapportionment. Amends the Circuit Courts Act. Provides that the boundaries of the subcircuits in certain judicial circuits shall be redrawn in 2022 (currently, in 2021). Effective immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.