HB-182 update

[Tvandermyde]

HB-182 has been sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

 

Now is the time to continue to urge him to sign this bill and HB-3714 which has been sent to the Governor as well. He now has 60 days to make a decision

[2nd amendment forever]

HB-182 has been sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

 

Now is the time to continue to urge him to sign this bill and HB-3714 which has been sent to the Governor as well. He now has 60 days to make a decision

By Phone or Mail:

 

Springfield

Office of the Governor

207 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Phone: 217-782-0244

TTY: 888-261-3336

 

Chicago

 

.gov/Office of the Governor

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, 16-100

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-814-2121

 

By E-mail:

 

http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

[2nd amendment forever]

BUMP!

 

HB-182 has been sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

 

Now is the time to continue to urge him to sign this bill and HB-3714 which has been sent to the Governor as well. He now has 60 days to make a decision

By Phone or Mail:

 

Springfield

Office of the Governor

207 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Phone: 217-782-0244

TTY: 888-261-3336

 

Chicago

 

.gov/Office of the Governor

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, 16-100

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-814-2121

 

By E-mail:

 

http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

[mack69]

Done....multiple times!

[anonymous too]

Where does Quinn's appointed DNR director and all the conservation groups like DU, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever, Whitetail Unlimited, What the hey!!!, etc. stand on this issue?

 

Because if the 1st Appellate Court decision is ever applied, we're all breaking the law if we're hunting other than on our own property even if we have permission to do so, right?

[Tvandermyde]

Kent --

 

UUW or AG UUW does not apply when on a range or while hunting. I don't know where the other guys stand on the issue most of them are never at the capitol except on rare occaisions like IGOLD.

[pyre400]

Any one get a reply from quinn? Even an automated one?

[2nd amendment forever]

Any one get a reply from quinn? Even an automated one?

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

[Xwing]

Any one get a reply from quinn? Even an automated one?

 

No. He's too busy trying to raise all our taxes... I did get a nice "your opinion has been noted and will be considered" bs by the administrative assistant though...

[anonymous too]

The "abode" issue was debated and should have been addressed better during the debate over the affirmative defense bill(Hale DeMar) and we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Legislative info quoted from the 1st Appellate Court decision. State v. Price

 

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Appe...uly/1053782.pdf

 

When considering the meaning of “abode” in the context of this statute, the Illinois

General Assembly expressly noted that the word’s definition was taken directly from the

unlawful-use offenses and the Criminal Code. Specifically, in the House of Representatives, Representative Bradley stated that “the definition, as we discussed, chairman, both in committee, subcommittee and also outside of those, is the language which was taken directly from the Criminal Code. *** It would include basically the home and the area around the home on the private property, but would not include private right of ways.” 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, May 13, 2004, at 19 (statements of Representative Bradley); see also 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 25, 2004, at 6 (statements of Senator Petka) (noting that the language in section 24-10 simply incorporates the language of – of the unlawful use of weapons Section as a restriction).1

 

1 The definition of abode was of considerable interest in the House of Representatives.

During the same floor debate, the following exchange occurred:

Representative Rose: You had answered the question earlier about the definition of "abode." I'm not sure that the record's [going to] be clear in a transcript form. Would you just go over that once again, your definition of "abode"?

 

Furthermore, in the Senate floor debate, Senator Petka, the principal sponsor of the bill,

was equally unambiguous about what the legislature intended "abode" to mean in the context of the unlawful-use offenses. During the floor debate on what effect the affirmative defense bill would have on the current law, Senator Petka stated that the unlawful-use offenses permit an individual to have a firearm in their home – or their place of business. So, if you’re [talking about] carrying [a weapon] outside the home, the answer is that individual would probably be in violation of a State law.” 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, March 25, 2004, at 69-70

(statements of Senator Petka).

 

Considered in concert, these statements strongly suggest a legislative intent to

criminalize most instances of firearm possession absent the special circumstance where a

person possessed a weapon out of fear for the safety of his person and his possessions inside his place of ongoing residence, i.e., his home. Because the affirmative defense statute is in pari materia with the unlawful-use offenses and because it uses the identical "abode" language, which the legislature expressly stated came from the unlawful-use offenses and the Criminal Code, we find the legislative history on this point compelling.

 

Our conclusion is further supported by the fact that equating "abode" with overnight

living quarters significantly erodes the purpose of the law and also leads to potentially absurd results. Indeed, accepting defendant’s interpretation of "abode" would exclude from prosecution any individual who could plausibly show that he had either spent the night or intended to spend the night at the place of his arrest.

 

Representative Bradley: Sure. Itss the home and the private residence,

including the yard and the area around the home." 93d Ill. Gen. Assem., House

Proceedings, May 13, 2004, at 20 (statements of Representative Rose and

Representative Bradley).

 

Moreover, such an interpretation potentially results in homeowners unwillingly and

unwittingly providing safe harbor to any overnight guest who, unbeknownst to them, brings a weapon into their home. More troubling still, it implicitly condones the transportation of a weapon from one's usual place of residence to any place of temporary sojourn, regardless of whether that sojourn was planned or merely a matter of a defendant fortuitously falling into the exception at the time of his arrest. Cf. McQueen v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 636, 638, 177 S.W. 91,92 (1915) (holding that an exception to a similar unlawful-use offense which permitted possession of a weapon at one's place of business or residence also implicitly permitted an individual to carry a weapon between one's place of business and residence). Because this interpretation would be at odds with the law's purpose of protecting the public and police officers absent the special circumstance when possession is limited to the confines of a person's place of ongoing residence we are unpersuaded that the legislature intended "abode" to mean any "overnight living quarters" in which a defendant finds himself at the time of his arrest.

 

The above quote in bold from the court makes me think a little. I have not read their entire decision, but does the court talk about if you have permission to have a firearm in someone else's abode?

 

"Unwillingly" as used in the court's quote above vs. "willingly" which would mean permission has been granted by the person who live in the "abode" you are staying at.

[Tvandermyde]

own dwelling would cover the hotel room based on definition of dwelling from the criminal code. You can infer permission, I have talked with the hotel i stay at in springfield, and everything is fine with them. it is generall a giggle when I wheel a cart full of guns through the lobby, and even sometimes the bar on the way to my room.

 

without them posting, you have paid for the room and have and it becomes your dwelling. so it is different from other places. Again, I don't want to go intogreat details about how we laid this out becuase of the lurking anti-gun types.

 

But in 2004, we were not quite sure all the questions that would come up and sometimes it is frustrating not being on the floor and be abale to answer the questions when you have the answers and are forced to reley on someone else. We try to talk over all the points fo the bills we work on with the sponsors to make sure they can answer most questions. but sometimes it just doesn't go the way you had hoped and planned for.

[lockman]

“[T]he legislative intent must be derived from the words used without involving incidental rules of construction or engaging in speculation as to what the judges might think that the legislators intended or should have intended.” Tropical Coach Line, Inc. v. Carter, 121 So. 2d 779, 782 (Fla. 1960).

 

“[h]owever well these rules may serve at times to decipher legislative intent, they long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will

read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.”

SEC v. Joiner, 320 U.S. 344, 350-51 (1943)

 

The carrying of uncased firearms is illegal, excluding the own land/abode/fixed place of business and specific exemptions enumerated after wards. The core problem here is every time this section of the criminal code it revised, the exemptions become more specific or are omitted in whole or part.

 

The Illinois legislature has butchered the Unlawful Use of Weapons statute over the last 30 year. The word "use" now is synonymous with "possess". The weapons laws should be drafted to allow utility and defense, but criminalize only the unlawful use against another or in the furtherance of another unlawful act. (One can still dream of a better future, right?)

 

HB182 is a good stop loss measure until we achieve real reform.

[Tvandermyde]

lockman

 

I agree. how does "Use" translate into straight up criminal possesion per se? by definition. Best advise I got when I started was you can write any law you want, just let me write the definition. I'll win everytime.

 

The UUW FUBAR started before I got there. I've tried to fight the bet fight I could, but the forces in the legislature were not always helpful or willing to go along. Heller has changed that feeling on several levels.

 

This past week I had a conversation with a anti-gun senator. We talked about the Chicago cae and my expectations. I laid out my time line and explained a position that if they wish to negotiate a carry bill now, we would be reasonable about it and they have the best chance of getting a deal on it. WHEN we win Chicago, and my expectations of butressing Heller, we will be challenging several laws in Illinois. Once we get a court to rule UUW -- 24-1 or 1.6 unconsitutional per Heller/Chicago there will be very little negotiations. And if you don't want top pass a carry bill, fine, the courts will invalidate the UUW statute and then you can see what happens when there are NO UUW charges to be filed.

 

I also explained that this could take plase anytime from next March to June 30, smack in the middle of the election. So how would you like to have a special session on RTC in the middle of a campaign?

 

He asked were we would start and I told him I would give him a bill to review.

 

Just becuase all you hear about is the budget, doesn't mean we still ain't workn' it.

[Ol'Coach]

Please read:

 

Link to thread re:HB182 and Illinois League of Women Voters

[THE KING]

lockman

 

I agree. how does "Use" translate into straight up criminal possesion per se? by definition. Best advise I got when I started was you can write any law you want, just let me write the definition. I'll win everytime.

 

The UUW FUBAR started before I got there. I've tried to fight the bet fight I could, but the forces in the legislature were not always helpful or willing to go along. Heller has changed that feeling on several levels.

 

This past week I had a conversation with a anti-gun senator. We talked about the Chicago cae and my expectations. I laid out my time line and explained a position that if they wish to negotiate a carry bill now, we would be reasonable about it and they have the best chance of getting a deal on it. WHEN we win Chicago, and my expectations of butressing Heller, we will be challenging several laws in Illinois. Once we get a court to rule UUW -- 24-1 or 1.6 unconsitutional per Heller/Chicago there will be very little negotiations. And if you don't want top pass a carry bill, fine, the courts will invalidate the UUW statute and then you can see what happens when there are NO UUW charges to be filed.

 

I also explained that this could take plase anytime from next March to June 30, smack in the middle of the election. So how would you like to have a special session on RTC in the middle of a campaign?

 

He asked were we would start and I told him I would give him a bill to review.

 

Just becuase all you hear about is the budget, doesn't mean we still ain't workn' it.

 

 

Hey Todd

 

Any updates that you can give us ?? Especially since 34 AG's filed their briefs on the Chicago case !!

 

How about HB 182. I hate waiting, don't know about anyone else but the wait is killing me

 

Dang it, make a decisioin

[sctman800]

Just thought this needed a bump, at some point in time something will happen, hopefully good. Jim.

[Buzzard]

It's looking like the governor is going to let this bill become law without his signature. My thinking is he will say that he disagreed with the legislature and didn't support the change in law.

 

That's my prediction.

[SheepleNoMore]

So if this becomes law we can transport to some place we have permission to carry or our temporary abode and load up and conceal. Then to go somewhere else or back to our home, we have to unload and put it back in a container.

 

Absolute nonsense.

[c-rock]

why push for a bill then?

 

 

Why not bring vermont carry to IL? We cannot afford to have more governmetn workers doing permits. Just git rid of it all, and lets have easy ways to carry.