Jump to content

103rd General Assembly Bills & Resolutions


mauserme

Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2023 at 11:11 AM, THE KING said:

I agree Mike. If you listen to Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, who is a constitutional lawyer, he has said that Body Armor is protected under the Second Amendment.  

Armed Scholar, also a YouTube Pro 2A lawyer says the same thing in a video he released today. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 8:25 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

They are legal federally, what am I missing?

 

As written, the bill would allow a patchwork of laws where municipalities would be able to ban them despite their being decriminalized at the state level.  We're applying the same "one state, one law" logic to this as was applied to concealed carry.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, mauserme said:

 

As written, the bill would allow a patchwork of laws where municipalities would be able to ban them despite their being decriminalized at the state level.  We're applying the same "one state, one law" logic to this as was applied to concealed carry.

 

Ah I was looking UP not DOWN ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added HB3260 DCSO – Youth Employment Program to our neutral list today:

 

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. Provides that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity shall establish a Future Through Employment for Young Adults Program to award grants to nonprofit entities to train young adults for the workforce and to place them in jobs with partners in the private and public sectors. Provides that, as part of the Future Through Employment for Young Adults Program, the Department shall operate a school-year program and a summer program. Provides for specified requirements of the school-year and summer programs. Provides that the Department shall work with local community-based organizations that interact with jobless youth and young adults and provide them strong, consistent support to build their work-related skills. Provides that the Department may adopt rules necessary to administer the Program.

 

HA1 to HB3260

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Reinserts the provisions of the introduced bill, but moves those provisions from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois to the Reimagine Public Safety Act. Provides that the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention (instead of the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity) shall operate the program.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding a late comer to our support list today:

 

HB4020 FOID & Concealed Carry – 18 Years

 

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Makes 18 (rather than 21) years of age as the minimum age in which a person, who is not an active duty member of the United States Armed Forces or the Illinois National Guard, may apply for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card without parental or legal guardian consent. Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Makes 18 (rather than 21) years of age as the minimum age for applying for and being issued a concealed carry license.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senate Amendment 1 was filed on HB754 Regulation – Tech today:

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that no person may acquire or possess any prepackaged explosive components within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police. Provides exemptions. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that a person commits unlawful sale or delivery of prepackaged explosive components when he or she knowingly sells or gives prepackaged explosive components to a person who is disqualified under the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Act; sells or transfers prepackaged explosive components to a person who does not display to the seller or transferor of the prepackaged explosive components a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card that has previously been issued in the transferee's name by the Department of State Police under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act; or sells or gives prepackaged explosive components while engaged in the business of selling prepackaged explosive components at wholesale or retail without being licensed as a federal firearms dealer under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Provides that any person who is convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of prepackaged explosive components commits a Class 4 felony. Defines "prepackaged explosive components". Makes other changes. Effective July 1, 2023.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I added HA1 to HB676 to the list of bills we oppose today:

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Counties Code. In the provision that the county board of any county may, by ordinance, regulate or prohibit within unincorporated areas the discharge of firearms in any residential area where such discharge is likely to subject residents or passersby to the risk of injury, defines "residential area" as any area within 1,000 (rather than 300) yards of at least 3 single or multi-family residential structures. Amends the Illinois Insurance Code. Creates the Task Force on Firearm Insurance to review current and potential future insurance policy offerings for the safe and legal possession of firearms and offer policymaking recommendations related to the use of that insurance. Provides that the Department of Insurance shall provide administrative support for the Task Force. Provides that the Task Force shall be comprised of specified members. Provides that the Task Force shall elect a chairperson from its membership. Provides that appointments shall be made within 90 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act. Provides that members shall serve without compensation. Provides that the Task Force shall submit a report of findings, recommendations, and other information to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 31, 2023. Provides that the Task Force is dissolved January 1, 2025. Amends the Firearm owners Identification Card Act. Provides that no person may acquire or possess any prepackaged explosive components within the State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Illinois State Police under the provisions of the Act. Provides exemptions. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Creates the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of prepackaged explosive components. Defines the offense and provides penalties for violation. Amends the Firearms Restraining Order Act. Expands the definition of "petitioner" to include intimate partners. Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Eliminates the repeal date of the statute creating the First Time Weapon Offender Program. Changes the name of the Program to the First Time Weapon Offense Program. Deletes a provision that a defendant is not eligible for the Program if he or she is 21 years of age or older. Provides that the Program shall be at least 6 (rather than 18) months and not to exceed 18 (rather than 24) months. Makes other changes to the Program. Amends the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. Provides that actions for an order of protection may be commenced in conjunction with an emergency or plenary proceeding under the Firearms Restraining Order Act provided that a petitioner and the respondent are a party to or the subject of that proceeding. Allows the court to prohibit a respondent against whom an order of protection was issued from possessing any firearms during the duration of the order if the order (1) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate, except in circumstances where an order is entered in conjunction with an affidavit or the verified petition for an emergency order of protection demonstrating exigent circumstances thereby justifying an entry of an emergency order without prior notice and (2) restrains such person from abusing the petitioner (rather than harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child). Prohibits the respondent of an order of protection prohibiting firearm possession to surrender any firearms from acquiring or possessing any firearms for the duration of the order of protection. Requires the court to immediately upon the entry of the order of protection prohibiting firearm possession issue a seizure order of any firearm in the possession of the respondent. Provides that the respondent shall be ordered to immediately surrender any firearms to the appropriate law enforcement agency and prohibited from transferring firearms to another individual in lieu of surrender to law enforcement. Provides that the relevant law enforcement agency shall provide a statement of receipt of any firearm seized or surrendered with a description of any firearm seized or surrendered to the respondent and the court, and that such statement shall be prima facie evidence of compliance with an order to surrender firearms. Allows a court to prohibit a respondent against whom an order of protection was issued from possessing any firearms during the duration of the order if certain prerequisites are satisfied. Makes conforming changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Makes other changes. Effective July 1, 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA1 to HB218 has been added as well:

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Provides that it is an unlawful practice within the meaning of the Act for any firearm industry member, through the sale, manufacturing, importing, or marketing of a firearm-related product, to: (i) knowingly create, maintain, or contribute to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public by conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all circumstances, including failing to establish or utilize reasonable controls; (ii) advertise, market, or promote a firearm-related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals to engage in unlawful paramilitary or private militia activity; (iii) advertise, market, promote, design, or sell any firearm-related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage persons under 18 years of age to unlawfully purchase or unlawfully possess or use a firearm-related product; or (iv) otherwise engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful under the Act. Provides that the provisions of the amendatory Act are severable. Defines terms. Effective immediately.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senate Amendment 1 has been filed on SB1073 Government - Tech:

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that the prohibition on possession of an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge device does not apply to a person who lawfully possessed that assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge, if the person, in addition to other requirements, has provided to the Illinois State Police in an endorsement affidavit, prior to January 1, 2024, under oath or affirmation, in the form and manner prescribed by the Illinois State Police, an affirmation that the affiant possessed an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge on or after the effective date of Public Act 102-1116 based upon a preliminary injunction or restraining order issued by a court in the State. Effective immediately.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House Amendment 3 has been filed on HB676 Firearm Manufacturers Responsibility Act:

 

Provides in the amendatory changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, that if a firearms seizure order is not served within 48 hours because the respondent cannot be located, law enforcement shall file the statement of receipt explaining the efforts and attempts made to serve the order on the respondent. Further provides that if the respondent fails to surrender the respondent's weapons in accordance with the order to surrender, the law enforcement agency shall file a statement of receipt explaining how and when the order was served and that the respondent did not comply within the required time. In the amendatory changes to the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, deletes references to prepackaged explosive components in relation to certain record-keeping requirements for the transferor and transferee of such components.

 

 

It was clear in committee that the sponsor hadn't bothered to talk to any state agencies about the original language.  It looks like she may be hearing from them now.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

on page 88, line 3, by inserting after "court." the following:
11   "If the respondent fails to surrender the respondent's weapons
12   in accordance with the order to surrender, the law enforcement
13   agency shall file a statement of receipt explaining how and
14   when the order was served and that the respondent did not
15   comply within the required time.".

 

 

Is there a criminal penalty for not complying within the required time?    
     
     
     
     
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 11:44 PM, Molly B. said:

 

Is there a criminal penalty for not complying within the required time?    
     
     
     
     

 

No.  In committee the sponsor explained, that since it would be a court issuing the seizure order, the respondent could be held in contempt of court if they don't comply.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Don Harmon just proposed a floor amendment to an unrelated bill, HB3062:

 

Sec. 2-101.5. Venue in actions asserting constitutional claims against the State. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, if an action is brought against the State on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly asserting a cause of action for a violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, venue in that action is proper only in the County of Sangamon and the County of Cook. (b) The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions subject to this Section.  (c) As used in this Section, "State" has the meaning given to that term in Section 1 of the State Employee Indemnification Act. Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.".

 

He wants to prevent the citizens from choosing which court they file lawsuits against the state. He wants them in courts favorable to the politicians. 

hb3062sam001.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2023 at 2:17 PM, DWillar said:

Sen. Don Harmon just proposed a floor amendment to an unrelated bill, HB3062:

 

Sec. 2-101.5. Venue in actions asserting constitutional claims against the State. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, if an action is brought against the State on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly asserting a cause of action for a violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, venue in that action is proper only in the County of Sangamon and the County of Cook. (b) The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions subject to this Section.  (c) As used in this Section, "State" has the meaning given to that term in Section 1 of the State Employee Indemnification Act. Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.".

 

He wants to prevent the citizens from choosing which court they file lawsuits against the state. He wants them in courts favorable to the politicians. 

hb3062sam001.pdf 93.6 kB · 1 download

 

This was posted to the Senate Executive hearing today for subject matter, meaning a discussion without intent to move it to the floor.  It didn't even get that.

 

I'm sure we're not done with it forever, but maybe we're done with it through the end of Spring session.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't if Mr. Harmon thinks he can dictate procedure to the federal courts, but he filed this today:

 

Senate Amendment 2 to HB3062

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that, if an action is brought against the State or any of its officers, employees, or agents acting in an official capacity on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against any State statute, rule, or executive order based on an alleged violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois or the Constitution of the United States, venue in that action is proper only in the County of Sangamon and the County of Cook. Defines "State". Effective immediately.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 2:29 PM, mauserme said:

I don't if Mr. Harmon thinks he can dictate procedure to the federal courts, but he filed this today:

 

Senate Amendment 2 to HB3062

 

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that, if an action is brought against the State or any of its officers, employees, or agents acting in an official capacity on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against any State statute, rule, or executive order based on an alleged violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois or the Constitution of the United States, venue in that action is proper only in the County of Sangamon and the County of Cook. Defines "State". Effective immediately.

 

 

 

I didn't think the congress could tell the Judaical Branch how to manage court cases.

Why not just make a law that immediately dismisses any challenges against the state, period?

 

Some reading material from IL Supreme Court on Rule 187.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.idc.law/resource/resmgr/quarterly_v30-31/31.1.M1.pdf
 

Federally,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forum_non_conveniens

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically:

 

Quote

Article VI, Sec. 16 of the Illinois Constitution provides that “[g]eneral administrative and supervisory authority over
all courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules.”107
Among the powers the Illinois Supreme Court has found its courts have under the Illinois Constitution is the power to
transfer cases from one county to another county. 108 The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “if a statute conflicts with
a rule that involves a matter within the judicial authority, the statute must yield to the rule.”109
 

Codifying the power granted to the court in the Illinois Constitution, the Supreme Court has enacted Supreme Court
Rule 187 that governs transfer under forum non conveniens and Supreme Court Rule 384 that allows the Court to
consolidate cases that are filed in different judicial circuits. Forum non conveniens has been noted by the courts to be an
equitable doctrine that is “founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial
administration.”110 “This doctrine allows a trial court to decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum ‘would better
serve the ends of justice.’”111
 

The courts, not the General Assembly, are tasked with balancing equities and doing justice between parties in
determining, among other things, where a particular piece of litigation is most conveniently litigated. The factors for

determining whether a given case should be transferred under forum non conveniens demonstrate the means to
accomplish the central interest of Illinois courts in accomplishing their constitutionally mandated role of managing their
dockets. When it comes to the allocation of judicial resources, courts are best suited to make these decisions, as compared
to attorneys who file individual lawsuits that suit their individual interests or the General Assembly who legislates on a
sweeping, statewide basis. The effort to eliminate intrastate forum non conveniens would violate the Illinois Constitution
as the General Assembly would usurp the role of the courts and place the power to manage court dockets with plaintiffs’
attorneys instead of Illinois courts.

 

 

 

Edited by Upholder
Add the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2023 at 8:53 PM, Upholder said:

All of that said, the GA don't care.  They're gonna do it anyway and will have to be taken to court over it.

Like I said in another post. 
All people in the GA, Senate, their assistants, pages, etc, who ever is a licensed attorney that, wrote, modified, voted for, etc, the bills, Needs to have complaints filed against their license. They just outright know better. 

They know what they are doing regardless of playing “dumb congress person” excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/6/2023 at 9:16 PM, THE KING said:

How long before the first lawsuit is filed. 

 

And where 🤣

I'm thinking federal court. It'll get struck down in the same manner as California's fee-shifting law.

 

While I suspect HB3062 is just a publicity stunt, I will nonetheless look forward to the state's attempt to defend this before a federal judge.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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