cybermgk Posted June 20, 2021 at 02:07 PM Share Posted June 20, 2021 at 02:07 PM Got this answer to my email to ISRA on HB562. This is the most verbosity I have seen XXX, The problem is you have not been told everything about the situation. What people don’t understand is the Governor handed down an edict to the Democratic caucus. He was concerned that it appeared his administration wasn’t doing anything to stop the horrific violent crime rate in Illinois and most notably in Cook County & Chicago. He demanded that they pass either HB1091 or HB562 – one or the other without fail. We knew early on that one of those two bills was going to get passed and the Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop it. The ISRA is a one issue organization, and we base our decisions on what is most appropriate in the long run. Our decisions are not based on animosity toward any group or individual but rather what is in the best interest of the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois firearm owners. Given the political climate surrounding HB1091 and HB562 it was clear a decision had to be made on what would be the best course of action. Those who believe the ISRA should “draw a line in the sand” and say “no” to both bills, have no understanding of the mission of the ISRA – to foster the best possible environment for Illinois firearm owners. Taking a hardline and rejecting both bills simply means the anti-Second Amendment backers of those bills will do whatever they want and the ISRA will not have a seat at the table to try to get the most onerous elements of a bill removed and we did manage to accomplish a few good things. Representative Denyse Stoneback (D-16th District), a cosponsor of HB1091, was adamant about three onerous provisions: It would require mandatory fingerprinting, There would be an unspecified increase in the cost though rough calculations based on other aspects of the bill, it put the cost of a new FOID card at about $75, and Applicants would be required to go to a police station to apply. Other particularly undesirable aspects to HB1091 included the “clear and present danger” aspect expanded to include “any act” intended to cause or create a risk… It was dangerously vague with significant negative implications for Illinois firearm owners. The bill would also ban the private sale of firearms with all transactions required to go through an FFL. There were no positive aspects to HB1091 and the ISRA took a negative position on the bill. The controversy alleging the ISRA’s lack of support for Illinois firearm owners was focused on our neutral position on HB562. It was a very carefully considered position and it requires an understanding of the bill’s contents and the ISRA’s long term strategy. One of the most naïve criticisms came from those individuals who either opined that there was no such thing as “backroom deals” or those who thought there should never be any kind of “backroom deals;” everything should be discussed publicly. Otto von Bismarck, former chancellor of Germany, wrote, “The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they’ll sleep at night.” Backroom deals are as old as government itself and an intrinsic thread in the fabric of law making. Backroom deals are essential when you are not the dominant party. Look at the positive points in HB562. First, let us be clear, the ISRA objects to the very concept of a FOID card. The Second Amendment guarantees it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period. No FOID cards, no de facto poll tax, nothing that stands between law abiding citizens and acquiring and keeping firearms. The fact is in Illinois we have such impediments and the ISRA’s long term strategy is to have the FOID card declared unconstitutional, but you do not just flip a switch and it goes away. So, the short-term strategy is to do whatever is possible to reduce the negative impact on Illinois firearm owners while implementing a strategy for the ultimate removal of the FOID card which brings us to HB562. Literally hundreds of hours and many meetings were held discussing over a hundred different parts and combinations. In the end, those discussions produced a bill that had several positive elements. The FOID card would automatically renew simultaneously with the CCL renewal. Ultimately the FOID expiration would be eliminated. The FOID and CCL would be consolidated into one card. Ultimately an electronic version of the FOID/CCL would be developed. A public defender would be added to the appeals board. The change of address requirement would be eliminated. No increase in the FOID fee. There were a few other positive aspects but there were also a host of negative aspects the ISRA objected to: Voluntary fingerprinting, changed from mandatory initially, but still objected to by the ISRA because fingerprinting should not be required to exercise a constitutional right. It allowed for supervision and expungement of misdemeanor offenses if a person failed to identify where the transfer records were maintained by an FFL. Person to person firearm transfer could either include a NICS at an FFL or through the person-to-person transfer using ISP FOID verification but also included the buyer providing a record of the transfer to an FFL within 10 days. The seller of a firearm must save the record for 10 years. A key aspect of items 3 & 4 is the effective date is January 1, 2024. Last year the ISRA filed a depravation of rights lawsuit in federal court over the FOID card. We began with four plaintiffs and within a month all four received their FOID cards in the mail. Clever trick but short sighted. It is a tactic frowned upon by the court and is not likely to work again. The litigation to eliminate the FOID card continues with new plaintiffs and with a far more friendly SCOTUS it is anticipated that the FOID card may very well be found unconstitutional prior to the implementation of HB562’s provision for person-to-person firearm transfers. Given that either HB1091 or HB562 was going to be implemented, the ISRA took the position of objecting to HB1091 and remaining neutral on HB562. We did not want to endorse a bill that was overall anti-Second Amendment, yet we did not want to come out against it which might have increased public sentiment to stop HB562 and as a result see HB1091 approved. Clearly HB562 is the better of the choices and ISRA will continue with litigation to end the FOID card. Having said that, if the litigation is unsuccessful, HB562 will be far better to live with than HB1091. What would you have had us do differently? If we objected to HB562 you’d have the far more unfriendly HB1091 now. Remember, it was definite that it would be one or the other and no way to stop it. dal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.