Jump to content

Call to Action 2/22/2015 - Witness Slips Needed


mauserme

Recommended Posts

.

Call to Action

Witness Slips Needed

Witness Slip Instructions

 

 

 

As the legislative session continues we find our interests broadening to include several new bills scheduled for committee hearings in the coming week, as well as two bills rescheduled from last week. Even if you filed witness slips for HB148 and HB265 last week, it will be necessary to re-file them again now.

 

Today's Call to Action groups the current bills by position - Oppose versus Support - in order to avoid confusion when filing witness slips.

 

 

 

Log on to the ILGA Dashboard or Create a New Account

 

 

 

 

Oppose

 

HB148 Lost & Stolen Firearms - OPPONENT

 

Illinois law has required FOID Card holders, but not persons illegally in possession of firearms, to report lost or stolen firearms since the Gun Safety and Responsibility Act became law effective 8/9/2013. HB148 seeks to deny otherwise law abiding citizens their right to own firearms via FOID revocation and felony conviction.

 

 

 

 

HB265 Firearm Protect Order - OPPONENT

 

There are many forms of protection order available to the courts in Illinois, from granting occupancy of the family home to giving custody of the family pet to one spouse or another. Of the tools available to a judge a firearm protection order, as it currently exists in law, is one of the most important when determined necessary by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

HB265 proposes to subvert the judicial discretion so necessary to our system of governance by prohibiting the subject of an order of protection from purchasing or transporting a firearm, even when that order is simply in regard to animals, property, and a number of other orders unrelated to a physical threat against the petitioner.

 

While enough to oppose on its own merits, HB265 also creates a frightening potential synergy when taken in context with HB399 Protection Order Issuance. Though not the subject of the current call to action HB399 proposes to empower the States Attorney, and courts on their own motion, to impose an order of protection on behalf of a petitioner even against the petitioner's wishes. This combination of ill conceived legislation, both bad in their own right, establishes an untenable system of potential rights denial under the most unusual of circumstances.

 

 

 

 

HB359 Firearm Concealed Carry Signs - OPPONENT

 

Inverts the signage requirement. Establishes a precedent of allowing private property owners to passively deny the exercise of all civil rights under color of law.

 

 

 

 

HB419 Firearm Concealed Carry Prohibit Place - OPPONENT

 

Adds places licensed under the Video Gaming Act as prohibited locations, including fraternal & veterans establishments, and truck stops, whether or not alcohol is served. Changes privilege to post a location any person lawfully in possession and control. Changes private residences to presumptively prohibited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support

 

HB319 Concealed Carry Parking Lot - PROPONENT

 

Removes dangerous unloading requirement from “safe harbor” parking lot provision

 

 

 

 

HB367 Concealed Carry Public Transit - PROPONENT

 

Removes the carry prohibition on public transportation

 

 

 

 

HB433 Wildlife Use of Suppressors - PROPONENT

 

Removes the prohibition on hunting with a suppressor

 

 

 

 

HB481 Concealed Carry Rest Area - PROPONENT

 

Permits a licensee to carry in rest areas

 

 

 

 

HB482 FOID & Crim Cd Concealed Carry - PROPONENT

 

Permits firearms transfers to a person displaying a valid FOID or FCCL

 

 

 

 

HB483 Crim Cd Firearm Waiting Period - PROPONENT

 

Eliminates the waiting period for persons licensed under the FCCA

.

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to HB353 Crim Cd & Corr Weapons Felons, Illinois Carry has long opposed bills that seek to enhance, or impose mandatory minimum sentences for crimes made no worse by possession of a firearm, or for firearm possession absent any violent behavior. HB353 is among these.

 

We acknowledge, however, that HB353 is somewhat different than prior versions - most notably by tightening the language in regard to UUW.

 

The bill remains imperfect, seeking in some cases severe penalties for possession, without use, of firearms by certain persons who arguably pose no threat to society. However, because of the the change noted above, we are not asking for witness slips at this time.

 

The State of Illinois is presented with an opportunity to change its view of prior criminal behavior in ways that differentiate between violent and non-violent. We hope, in keeping with Executive Order 14 the state can avoid the temptation to replace one set of non-violent offenders with other non-violent offenders. It is only when we address true violence, when we no longer view possession of a firearm as an act of violence in and of itself, that our problems can be solved.

 

And while the recently decided Suarez v Holder is only indirectly related to these concepts, we hope guidance can be found in the decision finding in Plaintiff's favor:

 

The traditional justification for § 922(g)(1) was the disarmament of individuals likely to commit violent acts. Barton, 633 F.3d 173. Under Barton, a felon with a minor, non-violent conviction can demonstrate a lack of violent propensity, and therefore outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1), by showing that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen. Id.at 174. Alternatively, a felon can demonstrate that he is outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) by showing that his conviction is decades-old and that he poses no continuing threat to society. Id.

...

Defendants arguments that Plaintiffs circumstances make him no different than those historically barred from Second Amendment protections do not persuade us otherwise. First, they argue that Congress enacted § 922(g)(1) with a broad prophylactic purpose and intended to impose a possession prohibition on individuals convicted of both violent and non-violent crimes. (Doc. 13 at 29-33; Doc. 28 at 26). Therefore, according to Defendants, although Plaintiffs conviction did not involve violence, he is not outside the intended scope of the felon possession prohibition of § 922(g)(1).17 (Id.). We find this argument better made before the Third Circuit in an attempt to overturn Barton Despite Congresss broad reach with § 922(g)(1), the Third Circuits opinion in Barton allows a challenger to demonstrate that he is beyond that reach and therefore different from those historically barred. Barton , 633 F.3d 173. If the wide breadth of § 922(g)(1) meant that a challenger with a non-violent or decades-old conviction could never demonstrate that his circumstances place him beyond § 922(g)(1)s intended scope, Barton would be hollow. We decline to render it so.

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

Progress Tracker

Click the links below for witness slip totals:

 

 

HB148 Lost & Stolen Firearms - OPPONENT

 

 

HB265 Firearm Protect Order - OPPONENT

 

 

HB359 Firearm Concealed Carry Signs - OPPONENT

 

 

HB419 Firearm Concealed Carry Prohibit Place - OPPONENT

 

 

HB319 Concealed Carry Parking Lot - PROPONENT

 

 

HB367 Concealed Carry Public Transit - PROPONENT

 

 

HB433 Wildlife Use of Suppressors - PROPONENT

 

 

HB481 Concealed Carry Rest Area - PROPONENT

 

 

HB482 FOID & Crim Cd Concealed Carry - PROPONENT

 

 

HB483 Crim Cd Firearm Waiting Period - PROPONENT

 

 

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done for all. This is my first time filling out witness slips! What a great feeling! A million thank yous to mauserme, molly and all of the moderators and administration staff for making this process so easy. It is a great feeling to be more involved in the process instead of just being a part of the silent majority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already filed for 148 and 265 a few days ago, am I filing again for an amended version?

 

 

 

I already filed for 148 and 265 a few days ago, am I filing again for an amended version?

Not amended, but filing for a new hearing. Both bills were rescheduled and the prior witness slips were not retained.

 

Thanks for Asking and Thanks for asking

All Filed X 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How VERY VERY Sad it is only 20 witness slips filled out so far .

If people use Firefox your Profile is saved and it takes less than a minute to File each slip . Complacency is not our Friend it is our Enemies Friend and they use it well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the witness slips that were filed earlier? Seems they magically went away?

 

Ah, just saw your post above. Will re-file.

They exist and can be seen if you search for them, but they aren't retained with the bill as it moves through the process. Only those witness slips filed for the hearing in which a bill is approved for consideration become a part of the legislative record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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