Call to Action 6/13/2021

[mauserme]

 

When Will It Be Enough?

When the legislature adjourned on June 1, it did so with unfinished business. Some of this, such as an energy bill, does not concern us. Others, two bills on the House Concurrence Calendar for example, concern us a great deal.

 

Several years ago, hard negotiation led to creation of the Firearm Restraining Order Act. Like most law, the Act is imperfect. From a gun rights point of view, there are concerns about due process and about the possibility of petitions being filed for revenge rather than safety.

 

From a gun control point of view, some opine that Illinois' law is "underutilized", ie., not enough gun owners are suffering, comparing us to other states as if engaged in a perverse nationwide rights deprivation contest.. While the original law is designed to address very specific mental health issues, this bill is designed for broad punitive actions.

 

House Amendment 1 and Senate Amendment 2 to HB1092 now seek to raise the level of infringement in Illinois by expanding the definition of who may petition for a Firearm Restraining Order to include those potentially out for revenge. These amendments also include a prohibition on possession of ammunition and confiscation of firearm parts.

 

In committee, the House sponsor of HB1092 complained that Maryland issues firearm restraining orders at a much higher rate than Illinois, oblivious to the fact that our lower need for such orders is a very good thing. Our law is doing the job it was meant to do.

 

Help us lose this ill conceived numbers contest to any other state that wishes to engage in this rivalry between gun control groups. Help us make clear that while safety is an important issue, this gun control one-upmanship is unacceptable.

 

Another bill, HB562 as amended, is the subject of much confusion and a fair degree of consternation.

 

Euphemistically called “FOID Modernization”, this gun control legislation has gained entirely too much support by people who claim to protect gun rights in Illinois. Yes, the bill includes window dressing to make it seem an improvement. Combining the FOID and concealed carry cards into one and making them available in electronic format are things some want. No rational person, however, would trade those small changes for the loss of private transfers, record keeping requirements amounting to gun registration, and a complete lack of due process in the FOID appeal process. Yet, HB562 asks Illinois gun owners to make these exact trades. Like HB1092, this bill is on the House Concurrence Calendar subject to a final action vote at the drop of a hat, far beyond the reach of witness slips.

 

Are we to believe that by making the FOID system easier for the Government to control and monitor us is a step in the right direction? Do we want Government to have a more expeditious process to strip us of our Second Amendment Rights? NO!

 

Call to Action

On Monday 6/14, and Tuesday 6/15, please call your state representatives in their district offices. Politely express your opposition to HB562 and HB1092. Ask them to vote against either that should come to a vote on the House floor.

 

Your Representatives' phone numbers can be found here.

 

While making those calls, please include a call to the HB562 sponsor, Representative Jay Hoffman, in his district office: 618-416-7407. Help him understand that Illinois gun owners do not support his legislation.

 

On Wednesday morning please make one more call, this time to Representative Hoffman's Springfield office: 217-782-0104. Again, politely impress upon him or his staff that his HB562 is not supported by those who value the Second Amendment.

 

When will it be enough? Seemingly never. Gun control groups will never be content with legislation negotiated in good faith. The work of defending our rights will never be done. Join us on the IllinoisCarry forum for ongoing discussion.

 

###

.

[JBuck847]

My email to Representative Mark Walker re HB562 and HB1092:

 

Representative Walker,

The following link is to the U.S. Congressional testimony of Nikki Goeser, a victim/survivor of a violent crime. Nikki testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution about her concerns with red flag laws and how gun-control laws can have unintended consequences that can impact good people. Nikki explains how victims of violent crime could end up unable to protect themselves, compounding their risks and fears in what is already a very difficult situation for them.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/nikki-goeser-testimony

HB562 and HB1092 would add to the already burdensome rules and regulations supposedly intended to protect Illinoisans from "gun violence." The unintended consequence is they actually makes us defenseless targets of predators.

If these bills come before you, please stand and say "No more."

[EdDinIL]

I had a 20 minute call with Rep. Tom Weber (R-64) 's assistant last week. He is opposed to both bills, and pretty much to any additional infringements.

[cybermgk]

Done for today. Hoffman's office is obviously gotten a few calls, they knew what bill, the minute I said I called to express opposition to a bill he is sponsoring. . Very cordial on both sides

[cybermgk]

Is this true, about the registry, er, sorry records retention part of HB562, for private sales?

 

"The recipient of the firearm must be able to provide the name of the firearm dealer maintaining the record for that particular firearm upon demand by law enforcement. Failing to do so is a Class A misdemeanor on the first offense or a Class 4 felony for subsequent offenses."

 

THis from the NRA-ILA alert.

[mauserme]

Is this true, about the registry, er, sorry records retention part of HB562, for private sales?

 

"The recipient of the firearm must be able to provide the name of the firearm dealer maintaining the record for that particular firearm upon demand by law enforcement. Failing to do so is a Class A misdemeanor on the first offense or a Class 4 felony for subsequent offenses."

 

THis from the NRA-ILA alert.

Senate Amendment 2 requires that a record of all transfers be given to an FFL within 10 days of the transfer. If a firearm you sold turns up at a crime scene for example, you will be in the chain of ownership and will be contacted. If you tell them it was sold but can't remember where the record is stored, that is going to be a problem. And yes, a Class A for a first offense and Class 4 for a second offense is accurate.

 

[Molly B.]

My understanding is the person selling/trading the firearm must keep continue to keep a record for 10 years, as currently required. The transferee receiving the firearm must submit detailed record to an FFL, thereby granting the ISP 20-year full access to info regarding make, model, serial number of their newly acquired firearm.

 

and yes, to the question about remember which FFL has the record:

 

For any 19 transfer pursuant to subsection (a-10) of this Section, on the 20 demand of a peace officer, such transferee shall identify the 21 federally licensed firearm dealer maintaining the transfer 22

record.

 

 

failure by a transferee pursuant to 4 subsection a-10 of this Section to identify the federally 5 licensed firearm dealer maintaining the transfer record, is a 6 Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class 4 felony 7 for a second or subsequent offense occurring within 10 years 8 of the first offense and the second offense was committed 9 after conviction of the first offense. Whenever any person who 10 has not previously been convicted of any violation of 11 subsection (a-5), the court may grant supervision pursuant to 12 and consistent with the limitations of Section 5-6-1 of the 13 Unified Code of Corrections.