HB4357 - Sweeping ban on Illinois Semi-autos


PDA






huff.jeremy
April 14, 2008, 09:47 PM
Just ran across this Proposed Illinois House Bill. So far it has made good headway through the house....

Aside from its proposed ban on several pistols and shotguns, and several rifles by name (norinco, ar-15) this also bans ANY semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that also has: either a pistol grip or a heat shield. We are slowly turning into California.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately.

Full Text: http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=51&GA=95&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4357&GAID=9&LegID=34861&SpecSess=&Session=

If you enjoyed reading about "HB4357 - Sweeping ban on Illinois Semi-autos" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
isp2605
April 14, 2008, 10:24 PM
It hasn't gone anywhere in the House. It's still in committee and hasn't even made it to the floor.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4357&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=34861&SessionID=51&GA=95

huff.jeremy
April 14, 2008, 11:22 PM
That depends completely on how you define "going somewhere" in "the house".

Here, the bill has passed 2 of three readings as well as the rules committe and the substantive committee, then was called back to 2nd reading (probably for an amendment?). It requires only one more step, to be voted on by the house, before it goes to the senate. Therefore, in my opinion, this bill has "gone somewhere" in the house, at a fairly quick pace.

Just the fact that it has several sponsors, and the fact that it has passed the rules committee as well as a substantive committee, is enough to bother me. It is definitely not a dead bill.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 14, 2008, 11:27 PM
It's sad - fight the good fight, Illinoisians

ANY semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that also has: either a pistol grip or a heat shield

What? No prohibition on "shoulder things that go up?"

Zoogster
April 15, 2008, 01:06 AM
We are slowly turning into California.

Actualy I think if you get a state assault weapons bill, all you need is an approved pistol list and you will be clearly the worst state, clearly exceeding CA which I think is still better than a couple others.

CA does not require a FOID a severe infringement on your rights.
In CA a firearm owner that does not become a prohibited person can continue to legaly own thier firearm(s) for the rest of thier live's without ever having to check in with or get continued permission, and pay for said permission from the state.
IL requires a license to not only buy firearms and ammunition, but to continue to lawfuly possess and transport something you already own, as well as to use it in various locations, ranges, purchase ammunition etc
In my opinion that is an even greater authoritarian practice than the limitations on the types of firearms a person can have as practiced currently in CA.


In IL you even have to case all your guns to transport them, a step beyond CA. In CA the trunk is enough, and only handguns must be transported in a locked container (a step beyond IL as IL only requires them to be cased.)

In my opinion any state that requires a renewed license to just remain a legal lawful owner, even in your own home has crossed over the authoritarian threshold. CA is not yet there. IL, MA, NJ are some I am aware of that currently have stepped over that threshold.

Further, what qualifies as a firearm and requires said license is far more inclusive than what qualifies as a firearm in CA.

Here is the definition of firearm in IL:

"Firearm" means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas; excluding, however:
(1) any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun or
B‑B gun which either expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter and which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second or breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors;

So even most pellet guns other than .177 caliber are firearms in IL, and most decent pellet guns even in .177 are firearms.

CA has some laws worse than IL, mainly pertaining to restrictions on what a citizen can easily obtain. However IL overall is far worse in my opinion and closer to losing rights altogether as the means to instantly deny all owners thier right, or do so on an individual basis, and turn them into criminals is already in place. You can't even remain legal if your FOID is not renewed annualy, and the requirements to renew, the fee to renew, and processing your renewal etc is all at the discretion of the state.
If the state did not process your FOID in time you would become a criminal in illegal possession of your arms.
Every year your legal status begins a new countdown, and only by paying, and the state then accepting your payment do you add more time on the clock that seperates you and criminal status.

Rmeju
April 15, 2008, 02:08 AM
Check out the thread on NY if you aren't worried yet!

Reid

isp2605
April 15, 2008, 06:16 AM
Here, the bill has passed 2 of three readings as well as the rules committe and the substantive committee, then was called back to 2nd reading (probably for an amendment?). It requires only one more step, to be voted on by the house, before it goes to the senate. Therefore, in my opinion, this bill has "gone somewhere" in the house, at a fairly quick pace.

Just the fact that it has several sponsors, and the fact that it has passed the rules committee as well as a substantive committee, is enough to bother me. It is definitely not a dead bill.
Lots of bills go thru the same process, have second and third readings but never go anywhere. This one is in its 2nd reading which was over 6 weeks ago and it's been in committee for over 3 months. That's very slow "progress" and is usually a sign that it's not got that much support and is just sitting. I have been involved in the legislative process involving numerous bills and if any of them sat in committee and got this type of "support" we knew they weren't going anywhere.

Autolycus
April 15, 2008, 09:41 AM
I hate this state. It seems like it is an uphill battle constantly here for gun rights.

The good news is that isp2605 is correct. The bill is not really making to much headway. But the idea is still out there and it is a scary one that our legislators try to pass this crap.

iamkris
April 15, 2008, 11:04 AM
Thank goodness I'm outta here. I'll continue to contribute to ISRA and gunsavelives.com (after all, I was born and bred a flatlander), but I'm off to greener pastures in another state.

rocinante
April 15, 2008, 01:09 PM
Is there a silver lining? I read the thread and the other about the outrageous bills in New York too but to me this looks like last call legislature. Go for broke, get it in under the wire, now or never, all pushed into the kitty gambling. Stinks of desperation to me. Glad I am not in a state where this slime could ooze out the legislature.

Blackbeard
April 15, 2008, 02:18 PM
This bill has been stalled for 9 months. It's not a ban on semi-autos, it's a ban on standard-capacity magazines. This is the bill that got me back into firearms 9 months ago. I'm thankful to say that it is stalled and may remain stalled indefinitely. There are many downstate democrats that oppose the bill, so it's not a foregone conclusion.

dmxx9900
April 15, 2008, 02:35 PM
Illinois is a lost cause unless you send some "insurgents" in there to sweep the place up and reform it to turn it into Vermont.No amount of votes or petitions will work in that state I have seen CA and its not possible even there.Move to Vermont or Florida anywhere but the oppression states.

charon
April 16, 2008, 02:16 PM
Actually we have been able to hold off the state and even Cook County (somewhat) though agressive responses to legislation. We have enough of a balance that the state level is always close -- too close -- but so far in our favor (Knock on Wood...).

We even held off the 2006 Cook County AWB the first few shots until it was snuck though back channels. Frankly, I was surprised we had that much influence at the county level. There is currently a lawsuit addressing that ban and the tactics used, so it may even turn around.

A hard, quarterly battle but we haven't passed the tipping point just yet (hopefully). We'll have to see how the latest round of assaults play out though. The big semi-auto and "loophole" votes are in the house today. Made my calls and even got a new gun owner involved to make his first calls.

Is there a silver lining? I read the thread and the other about the outrageous bills in New York too but to me this looks like last call legislature. Go for broke, get it in under the wire, now or never, all pushed into the kitty gambling. Stinks of desperation to me. Glad I am not in a state where this slime could ooze out the legislature.

I'm sure that's part of it. But this latest round, though somewhat more extreme than past efforts, is unfortunately not that unusual around these parts.

charon
April 16, 2008, 06:16 PM
So called "Loophole" failed (758) in a 58-58 vote. As close as it gets.

Rmeju
April 16, 2008, 09:54 PM
Weren't there two onerous, rediculous bills in the pipe?

What about the other one?

Reid

charon
April 17, 2008, 12:17 AM
Weren't there two onerous, ridiculous bills in the pipe?

HB4357 wasn't called today

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately.

After the loss on the personal sales bill I wonder if it will be. I THINK the personal sales bill was considered the low hanging fruit. Perhaps even as a "compromise" for moderates to support without supporting the semi ban. In fact, a lot of the antis that debated went out of their way to state that the personal sales bill "will not ban or take your firearms." Kind of interesting considering that the other bill, HB4357 would do just that.

It might come up tomorrow. However, I imagine (knock on wood) that it would be even harder to pass so they may not push it.

If you enjoyed reading about "HB4357 - Sweeping ban on Illinois Semi-autos" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!