Jump to content

102nd General Assembly Bills


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

HB4156

HB4156 said:

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

 

New Act

 

Creates the Firearms Dealer and Importer Liability Act. Provides that the Act may be referred to as the Protecting Heartbeats Act. Provides that any manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for any bodily injury or death if the bodily injury or death proximately results from the unlawful discharge of the firearm in the State. Allows any person, other than an officer or employee of a State or local governmental entity, to bring a civil action against any person or entity who violates the Act. Requires the court to award a prevailing claimant: (1) injunctive relief; (2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each individual injured or killed by a firearm that the defendant manufactured, imported, or dealt; and (3) costs and attorney's fees. Provides for various limitations.

 

"Strict liability" is a legal term that means intent (mens rea) is not required to define a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 1:16 PM, mauserme 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’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...