HB0048 - Ban Private Sales of Firearms

[Kenny]

I read HB0048 and it is just wrong. I started to think if this passed I could make a lot of money at least. Then I keep reading & HOLY CRAP!!! They put a max fee of $10 per firearm. Don't get me wrong it is great for people that would want to sell a gun, but as a dealer to transfer a gun like that there is a minimum of 15 minutes worth of work involved, probably more like 20 minutes. On top of the time the state gets their $2 fee to call it in. That leaves $8 for 20 minutes which calculates out to $24/hour now take 1/3 of that away for taxes & I end up doing it for $16/hour. Not terrible if you are an hourly employee BUT, who is responsible if seller A brings in a Glock 27 to transfer to Buyer B but the Glock 27 is a stolen firearm? How am I supposed to know? Who do you think they will blame for the transfer? Not Buyer B and it sure as heck is not going to be Seller A (AKA Thief) fault so that leaves the only other person involved with the transfer ME. What if the Seller does not have a FOID Card? This bill can not go anywhere.

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Requires a person who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm of a size that may be concealed upon the person to another person, who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to do so only at the place of business of a federally licensed firearm dealer. Provides that the federally licensed firearm dealer shall conduct a background check on the prospective recipient of the firearm and follow all other applicable federal, State, and local laws as if he were the seller of the firearm. Provides that the purchaser or transferee may be required by the federally licensed firearm dealer to pay a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm, plus any applicable fees. Makes exceptions for (i) the transfer of a firearm between spouses, a parent and child, or a grandparent and grandchild, (ii) transfers by persons acting pursuant to operation of law or a court order, or (iii) transfers on the grounds of a gun show. Imposes conditions on any rulemaking authority.

 

http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp...ID=76&GA=96

[TTIN]

I wouldn't think that you would HAVE to do a transfer...especially if the people involved were not known to you.

[abolt243]

If you remember, this is the same bill that was in last year's session as HB 758. We were able to bring it to a tie vote (defeat) by lots of phone calls, faxes and e-mails from members here as well as intense lobbying by the ISRA lobbyists. Osterman is simply re-cycling bills. We'll see every anti-gun bill reintroduced this year that was defeated or passed over last year. The antis are not very original thinkers, nor do they change their agenda. They want to outlaw and confiscate every firearm owned by private citizens in this country.

 

Never forget that!!

 

Tim

[45superman]

There will be a committee hearing on this one in the State Law Administration Committee at 10 AM on Tuesday, Feb 10.

 

Do we want to have someone there? If so, is someone available?

[45superman]

Cancel the above--I think I misread.

 

My apologies.

[45superman]

By the way, has everyone seen Todd Vandermyde's assessment of our situation? He focused very heavily on HB 48, and I think that's just what we need to be focused on. Here's an excerpt:

 

It appears that the anti-gunners are starting off by pinning all their hopes on HB-48 – a ban on the private transfer of handguns. Under this bill, all handgun transfers would be forced to go through an FFL, except for certain transfers to family members.

 

Once again the anti-gunners are trying to throw more red tape and bureaucracy just to make a lawful transfer. In committee they cited the 900 people who were stopped from buying a firearm, by the background check. Hmmm… with 1.2 million FOID cards, 900 denials means that is .0008% of FOID card holders. Less than 1/10th of 1% of all FOID card holders. There are years Chicago has had more murders than that number. But we digress.

 

You see, what they are proposing is already the law in Chicago. Chapter 8-20-170 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago says:

 

“ (a) No firearm may be sold or otherwise transferred within the City of Chicago except through a licensed weapons dealer as defined in Chapter 4-144 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago.”

 

Ever try to find a gun dealer in Chicago? Last time we looked there was one and all they do is police business. And we all know how well this little proposal has worked. I’ll bet that every gangbanger, or criminal bent on making another score will stop they next time they want a handgun and take their partner in crime right to a gun dealer to effect the transfer.

 

But that is the land of make believe that the Sponsor and other gun grabbers live in. Pass another law, and “we’ll help stop the crime”. But no sooner do they demand the passage of their silly little scheme, then they announce that it will not solve all the problems and demand yet another way to interfere with our rights.

 

HB-48 is one of the biggest threats we face this year in the House. Having been beaten back year after year, they are attempting to score a victory in light of last year’s overwhelming defeat.

 

[ . . . ]

 

It is very encouraging to note that so many of you have called your legislators and emailed us to express your opinions about this bill. But this is not the threat to our rights as HB-48 is. You are well represented in Springfield by a crew of dedicated lobbyists. This is a bill that while it gets your blood pressure up, is one that we have killed before and will kill again this year. Please turn your attention to your state reps. and HB-48.

 

Not only are we fighting anti-gun bills like HB-48 and a semi-auto ban, HB-165, We have bills that want to register every private firearm transfer in Illinois with the state police – HB-4243, remove your right to own a gun if you fail to report a lost or stolen firearm – HB-845. Just to name a few.

[45superman]

I've put together a contact list of Reps. for whom there is reason to think they could go either way on HB 48. It consists of names we assembled for last year's equivalent to HB 48, plus all the new reps. (except the ones who are HB 48 co-sponsors, and are thus pretty unlikely to be convinced). All contact info is for the Springfield office. If no FAX is listed, that's because I couldn't find one. If one is listed, but with a question mark afterward, that means that's the FAX # that Rep's predecessor had, and the voice line # is the same, so maybe the FAX is, too.

 

I think I'll be adding district office contact info, because they come home for weekends.

 

As I keep yelling, HB 48 is going to be THE biggest defensive battle we're facing this year, and it's going to be VERY tough. We need to start the calls, FAXes, letters, and office visits right away, and keep hammering away at anyone who doesn't commit

 

Representative Suzanne Bassi (R-47th District)

(217) 782-8026

(217) 782-5257 FAX;

 

Representative Patricia Bellock (R-54th District)

(217)-782-1448

(217) 782-2289 FAX;

 

Representative Bob Biggins (R-41st District)

(217) 782-6578

(217) 782-5257 FAX;

 

Representative John Cavaletto (R-107th District)

(217) 782-0066

(217) 782-1336 FAX;

 

Representative Sandy Cole (R-62nd District)

(217) 782-7320

(217) 782-1275 FAX;

 

Representative Michael Connelly (R-48th District)

(217) 782-8028

(217) 557-0571 FAX (?);

 

Representative Keith Farnham (R-43rd District)

(217) 782-8020

(no Springfield FAX listed);

 

Representative Mike Fortner (R-95th District)

(217) 782-1653

(no Springfield FAX listed);

 

Representative Paul Froelich (D-56th District)

(217) 782-3725

(217) 557-6271 FAX;

 

Representative Jehan Gordon (D-92nd District)

(217) 782-3186;

 

Representative Kay Hatcher (R-50th District)

(217) 782-1486;

 

Representative Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr. (D-114th)

(217) 782-5951

(217) 782-8794 FAX;

 

Representative Charles Jefferson (D-67th District)

(217) 782-3167

(217) 557-7654 FAX;

 

Representative Sidney Mathias (R-53rd District)

(217) 782-1664

(217) 782-1275 FAX;

 

Representative Emily McAsey (D-85th District)

(217) 782-4179

(217) 557-7204 FAX;

 

Representative Sandra Pihos (R-42nd District)

(217) 782-8037

(217) 558-1072 FAX;

 

Representative Harry Ramey (R-55th District)

(217) 558-1037

(217) 782-5257 FAX;

 

Representative Dennis Reboletti (R-46th District)

(217) 782-4014;

 

Representative Al Riley (D-38th District)

(217) 558-1007

(217) 558-1664 FAX);

 

Representative Darlene Senger (R-96th District)

(217)-782-6501

(217) 782-5257 FAX (?);

 

Representative Ed Sullivan Jr. (R-51st District)

(217) 782-3696

(217) 782-1275 FAX;

 

Representative Mark Walker (D-66th District)

(217) 782-3739

[45superman]

Thought I was done annoying you on this subject?

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! I'm not even close to finished being annoying.

 

Attached is an Excel file with links to all the Reps. we've identified as being susceptible to pressure (either for us or against us). Those links will have all known contact info for them, at both their Springfield and district offices.

 

The file also lists forum members (the ones who participated in this project) who are in those Reps' districts. We all need to contact all of them, but those who live in their districts are the ones they REALLY need to hear from.

 

If you find out they're back in town for the weekend (or whatever), and you can make an office visit, so much the better.

HB_48_member_district.xls

[45superman]

Told you I wasn't done being annoying!

 

When contacting legislators, we have something we need to point out to 5 of them. Their districts coincide, to at least some degree, with counties that passed some version of the pro-Second Amendment resolution, declaring further restrictions on firearms illegitimate.

 

Kay Hatcher, Kendall County--passed the resolution by a wide margin on May 6, 2008;

 

Charles Jefferson, Winnebago County--passed the resolution unanimously on Sept. 27, 2007;

 

Emily McAsey, Will County--passed the resolution overwhelmingly on Oct. 14, 2008;

 

Jehan Gordon, Peoria County--passed the resolution unanimously on Feb. 14, 2008;

 

John Cavaletto, Marion County--passed the resolution on Nov. 13, 2007

 

It's time to cash in on the pro-2A resolution movement.

[SmershAgent]

Are there any leads on when this one might see further action?

 

And also, thank you Kurt for putting so much effort into the research here. It's a tremendous help for everyone.

[45superman]

Are there any leads on when this one might see further action?

 

I don't know of anything concrete, but my hunch is that it will be on or shortly after Mar. 18th--since Snuffy and crew are planning a Springfield trip to lobby for HB 48 that day.

 

Then again, it just now occurs to me that making the trip even after the House vote (if it passes) might be worth it to them, to help push it in the Senate.

 

And also, thank you Kurt for putting so much effort into the research here. It's a tremendous help for everyone.

 

Thanks--just for that, I won't harass you like I have been with everyone else .

[SmershAgent]

Thanks--just for that, I won't harass you like I have been with everyone else .

 

My letters went in the mail today, so you can abstain from harassment with a clear conscience.

 

[45superman]

Man!!! They want this badly. From ICPGV (pdf).

 

Excerpt:

The survey results show an overwhelming majority of Illinois voters strongly support common sense gun laws such as background checks for private gun sales and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to law enforcement.

 

Voters statewide expressed overwhelming support for closing the “private sale loophole” by requiring background checks for all gun sales, with 90 percent in support and 76 percent strongly supporting such a measure. Support for universal background checks was strong among Republicans (85%), gun owners (79%), and NRA members (70%). Women, voters residing in the suburbs of Chicago, and Hispanic voters had the highest levels of support for the measure, each at 96 percent.

 

“It’s not surprising that so many women support background checks on private gun sales,” said Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview). “The fact is that women who are the victims of domestic abuse are particularly at risk of being shot and killed and gun violence disproportionately affects children and young people. If you’re thinking about the safety of your family and your own safety, it makes sense to support something as simple and necessary as background checks to keep felons, domestic violence offenders, minors and people with severe mental illness from accessing guns.”

 

My guess is that the questions were something along the lines of "Do you support universal background checks, or do you think fat, middle-aged white men should be allowed to use machine guns, in order to practice cannibalism on minority children?" Not to mention that the farthest downstate they went with their survey was apparently the Peoria area (and it was mostly the DuPage County area). More information on their survey poll can be had here.

 

This is going to be a tough fight, folks. Y'all in it yet?

[Molly B.]

HB 48 was on the docket today for Second Reading short-debate but was not called.

 

Still held in Second Reading.

 

We need to be listening in on the floor action and following this very closely.

 

I do not see the House scheduled to be in session tomorrow - Friday - but we need to check this again in the morning to make sure.

 

If they are called into session we need to be listening and watching.

 

Molly B.

[45superman]

HB 48 was on the docket today for Second Reading short-debate but was not called.

 

Still held in Second Reading.

 

We need to be listening in on the floor action and following this very closely.

 

I do not see the House scheduled to be in session tomorrow - Friday - but we need to check this again in the morning to make sure.

 

If they are called into session we need to be listening and watching.

 

Molly B.

 

Oops. Here I was, posing as the "HB 48 expert," and I missed that completely. Pretty embarrassing.

 

Thanks for the wake-up call.

[Flea]

Letter sent. Thanks 45 for the help.

 

Micah T.

[w00dc4ip]

I've called my representative's office and voiced my opposition to House Bill 48, but I'm also planning on sending a follow-up email and letter. Here is a draft that will be going out later today, please provide any suggestions or comments, or feel free to plagiarize the message if you like it. My rep is Biggins so if you will be sending a message to him, please don't copy this one exactly...

 

Representative Biggins,

I’m writing to you today to ask that you oppose in every way the passage of House Bill 0048. This bill would require anyone wishing to sell, trade or transfer ownership of a privately owned firearm to facilitate the transfer using a Federal Firearms License holder. There are only two purposes for this legislation as far as I can tell. The first is to make it more difficult and more expensive for law-abiding firearms owners to buy and sell firearms. The second is to create a back-door registration list of privately owned firearms and firearm owners in the State of Illinois. The current laws regarding a legal firearm transfer in Illinois state that the seller and the buyer are both required to have a FOID card. The seller is then required to keep a record of the transfer for 10 years, including the name, address and FOID card number of the buyer as well as a description and the serial number of the firearm. Again, in order for the seller to legally sell a firearm, and the buyer to legally buy a firearm, both parties must have a current and valid FOID card. The Illinois State Police complete criminal background checks on citizens when they apply to obtain a FOID card, and they revoke the FOID card of anyone in Illinois as soon as they are accused of a crime, often before they are officially charged. If the purpose of this legislation is to stop people who would fail a criminal background check from acquiring firearms, then this legislation does not need to be passed in order to accomplish that goal. Anyone who wouldn’t pass a criminal background check shouldn’t have a FOID card, so any private seller of a firearm is already prohibited from legally selling them one.

 

House Bill 0048 does nothing to reduce crime, as criminals rarely, if ever, acquire their firearms legally. It does nothing to help police investigate crimes, again because the firearms criminals use would not have been transferred legally. All House Bill 0048 does is it requires those citizens in Illinois who legally own firearms to jump through another hoop and pay another fee in order to exercise their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. 88 of Illinois 102 counties have recently passed a Second Amendment resolution asking the Illinois legislature to stop passing laws that do nothing more than infringe on the firearms related and self-defense rights of Illinois citizens. House Bill 0048 is exactly the type of legislation those resolutions target. Please oppose in every way you possibly can the passage of House Bill 0048. I welcome any questions or response you may have regarding this message.

 

Thank you,

w00dc4ip

North Riverside, IL

[45superman]

Thanks, w00dc4ip--that looks great.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to do this.

[burningspear]

This is an excellent letter. You covered all or most of the relevant points.

 

However, I do not believe the seller of a firearm is required by law to have a valid FOID card.

 

The assumption is that since the seller has possession of a firearm he has to have a valid FOID card. That assumption is not based on fact, since there are a lot of people, peaceable people, not thugs and gang bangers, who have firearms and no FOID card. They may never have had one or the one they had expired years ago and was trashed. The important fact is that the buyer, for the transfer to be lawful, must have an FOID card, which means this person has already passed a background check.

 

The transfer from thug to thug (neither has an FOID card and both have violent felony convictions) would not be reflected in the transfer database. These two would never get a background check prior going on a shooting rampage.

[w00dc4ip]

To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the "Buyer and Seller both being FOID holders" rule in the Illinois Code are:

1. An FFL from another state

2. Seller is disposing of an inherited firearm collection within 60 days of inheritence, other sales requirements (record keeping) remain

3. (though I never saw this one in the law anywhere, apparently those gun turn-in programs).

 

If in another circumstance, the seller does not have a FOID card, then he or she is not in possession of the firearm legally, so at least that portion of the transfer may not be totally legal.

[cherryriver]

"If in another circumstance, the seller does not have a FOID card, then he or she is not in possession of the firearm legally, so at least that portion of the transfer may not be totally legal. "

 

You're right, w00dc4ip, but as one LEO friend pointed out to me, I'm not law enforcement, and so I'm not obligated to enforce the FOID act.

Don't know how that'd play out in a court of law, but I can't say I've ever heard of someone getting dinged for not checking an FOID.

[Ol'Coach]

This is an excellent letter. You covered all or most of the relevant points.

 

However, I do not believe the seller of a firearm is required by law to have a valid FOID card.

 

The assumption is that since the seller has possession of a firearm he has to have a valid FOID card. That assumption is not based on fact, since there are a lot of people, peaceable people, not thugs and gang bangers, who have firearms and no FOID card. They may never have had one or the one they had expired years ago and was trashed. The important fact is that the buyer, for the transfer to be lawful, must have an FOID card, which means this person has already passed a background check.

 

I now 'tain't right, but, IL law being what it is, like it or not, they are breaking the law, therefore the transfer is also illegal.

[Gary]

This is an excellent letter. You covered all or most of the relevant points.

 

However, I do not believe the seller of a firearm is required by law to have a valid FOID card.

 

The assumption is that since the seller has possession of a firearm he has to have a valid FOID card. That assumption is not based on fact, since there are a lot of people, peaceable people, not thugs and gang bangers, who have firearms and no FOID card. They may never have had one or the one they had expired years ago and was trashed. The important fact is that the buyer, for the transfer to be lawful, must have an FOID card, which means this person has already passed a background check.

 

I now 'tain't right, but, IL law being what it is, like it or not, they are breaking the law, therefore the transfer is also illegal.

[w00dc4ip]

Sent Bob Boggins a message about HB0048 yesterday and got a pretty direct response today.

 

Response from Bob Biggins:

 

i will vote against the bill.

[45superman]

Sent Bob Boggins a message about HB0048 yesterday and got a pretty direct response today.

 

Response from Bob Biggins:

 

i will vote against the bill.

 

Nice work, w00dc4ip. We don't want to tie up his phone lines too much, but a quick "Thank you" from us wouldn't hurt.

[Lou]

Sent Bob Boggins a message about HB0048 yesterday and got a pretty direct response today.

 

Response from Bob Biggins:

 

i will vote against the bill.

 

Nice work, w00dc4ip. We don't want to tie up his phone lines too much, but a quick "Thank you" from us wouldn't hurt.

 

 

Do I smell a "blow-off" here?

 

Louis:

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding HB48. Your opinion will receive careful consideration when the issue is presented in the House.

 

I am always happy to be informed of your concerns and viewpoints and invite your continued interest and comments on any matters that will come before the legislature.

 

Best regards,

 

Patricia R. Bellock

State Representative

[Ol'Coach]

Sent Bob Boggins a message about HB0048 yesterday and got a pretty direct response today.

 

Response from Bob Biggins:

 

i will vote against the bill.

 

Nice work, w00dc4ip. We don't want to tie up his phone lines too much, but a quick "Thank you" from us wouldn't hurt.

 

 

Do I smell a "blow-off" here?

 

Louis:

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding HB48. Your opinion will receive careful consideration when the issue is presented in the House.

 

I am always happy to be informed of your concerns and viewpoints and invite your continued interest and comments on any matters that will come before the legislature.

 

Best regards,

 

Patricia R. Bellock

State Representative

 

Lou, whatever gave you that idea?

[45superman]

Do I smell a "blow-off" here?

 

Louis:

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding HB48. Your opinion will receive careful consideration when the issue is presented in the House.

 

I am always happy to be informed of your concerns and viewpoints and invite your continued interest and comments on any matters that will come before the legislature.

 

Best regards,

 

Patricia R. Bellock

State Representative

 

As it turns out, she came through for us after all. I almost feel bad for having doubted her.

[Lou]

Do I smell a "blow-off" here?

 

Louis:

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding HB48. Your opinion will receive careful consideration when the issue is presented in the House.

 

I am always happy to be informed of your concerns and viewpoints and invite your continued interest and comments on any matters that will come before the legislature.

 

Best regards,

 

Patricia R. Bellock

State Representative

 

As it turns out, she came through for us after all. I almost feel bad for having doubted her.

 

 

A Thank you note will be going out within minutes.

[ilphil]

Since it had to be obvious that the numbers weren't there to pass it I am very surprised it was called for a vote.

 

But I am sure as heck not going to complain.

 

Was there a similar bill introduced in the Senate that we may have to worry about cropping up or is the issue dead for this session??