Illinois members-Call your state reps NOW!


PDA






Geneseo1911
December 31, 2012, 02:11 PM
From our NRA lobbyist:

Posted Today, 11:04 AM
URGENT --

I just recieved word that Senate President John Cullerton will attempt to pass a Feinstein style Semi-auto ban and magazine ban When the Senate reconvenes for their lame duck session on the 2nd of January.

At this time we have no bill numbers, but anticipate them using house bills passed over for floor amendments which would only take a matter of hours to clear committee and be ready for a final vote.

Legislative offices are open today. You need to call your state senator and urge them to vote no on any gun bans or magazine bans.

Then call your state representative and urge them to vote no on any gun ban or magazine ban.

Call today, call Wednesday, call every day until this is defeated. More to follow as I get details.

Get the word out that the lame duck legislature is going to try to sneak this through while no-ones watching.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois members-Call your state reps NOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Geneseo1911
January 1, 2013, 05:30 PM
URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
CULLERTON TO INTRODUCE NEAR TOTAL GUN BAN ON JANUARY 2ND
The ISRA has learned from a credible source that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton will introduce a so called “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its “lame duck” session. Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.
Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.


Another update for those not on ISRA's mailing list-this one is BAD! Call your reps! The General Assembly is in session TOMORROW!

50 cal
January 1, 2013, 07:32 PM
I recieved the isra e-mail today also. Sounds to me like they want to make an example out of illinois to show the rest of the country it can be done. I wonder if this has a good chance of passing or if these low lifes are just retaliating because of the conceiled carry ruling.

Geneseo1911
January 1, 2013, 08:52 PM
They're trying to ram it through the lame duck session. It is a shotgun strategy-they're literally throwing EVERYTHING against the wall to see what sticks. ALL semi-autos and pump actions are banned in one of the proposed bills. Shooting range regulations, registration...EVERYTHING.

That is why it is so critical to CALL NOW! They start pushing this crap tomorrow!

IL has been pretty good up till this point...downstate has kept Chicago at bay, but if we don't stop what they're trying this week, we will have the worst gun laws in the country.

Even those outside IL should pick a rep and make a call. Whatever passes here will probably be Biden's recommendation to try at the Federal level.

GlockFan
January 1, 2013, 09:29 PM
This makes me boil. I am going to be calling everyone tomorrow. I would expect this to come from this crappy state of mine.

BCCL
January 1, 2013, 10:04 PM
Update from my local ISRA

From the IL NRA Lobbyist. This is a major development:
Update 1/1/13

We have been notified that the gun ban bills are expanding.
Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges and shutting down shoots like the Aurora Sportsman’s Club Zombie shoot.
Sources say the new bills would require any range open to the public to be run by an FFL. That they would be licensed under unlimited rules and regulations by the State Police. If you say what the Governor did under his AV of SB-681, you can imagine what kind of rules/standards he would put in place to run a range.
So ACS’s zombie shoot is open to people beyond the club’s membership, thus the shoot would be closed except to club members, certainly limiting the event. If not almost ending it. It would also seem to end those open range days where ne members are recruited.
This would also seem to be a result of the Ezell lawsuit as there would be no need for them to try to shift the regulation from locals to the state unless they thought Ezell was gonna be a losing on the second go around.
And the bill reverses changes that allow non FOID card holders to experience firearms safety training that has live fire components with it.
The gun ban now also attacks pump action rifles.
I won’t go into a lot of detail and I will ask that when the bills are made public that we not dissect every line and explain them to the antis as they will only try to build a better mouse trap. There are some doosies I have found that just make me laugh and then cry with the utter stupidity of these. I will look forward to testifying against these.
But as I have said, we don’t need to do their work for them. Thanks God they are not gun geeks.
And make more calls to your Senators.
pass this along to all your friends and gun clubs

OpelBlitz
January 1, 2013, 10:39 PM
Incredible. I will try to spread the word! How disgusting.

C0untZer0
January 2, 2013, 12:07 AM
it's odd that they expanded into so many things that their previous AWB didn't address. The nore sweeping they make it, the less likely they are to pick up the necesary downstate votes and Republican votes necesary to pass it.

But it does look like they are going on the offensive.

I'm not usually reactionary about this stuff, but this looks like the real deal, they're pulling out all stops.

Clinton
January 2, 2013, 12:14 AM
I get the updates via facebook and email. Im picking up my first semi xd40 tomorrow and calling as soon as I can.

Clinton

RTU
January 2, 2013, 12:20 AM
I've emailed all of them today, Will be calling them all tomorrow too!

JohnnyK
January 2, 2013, 12:28 AM
Chicago... the armpit of America. I hope this doesnt go thru... wouldnt McDonald case prevent this from happening?

C0untZer0
January 2, 2013, 12:35 AM
Heller/McDonald overturned a purchase / possession prohibition of all firearms, including possession of firearms in one's home. No subsequent opinion or case has said that Heller/McDonald forbids the regulation of certain types of firearms.

C0untZer0
January 2, 2013, 10:50 AM
For forum members who are in Illinois who don't know who their legislators you can look them up here:

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=IL&view=myofficials&action=chgaddr#0

There was some redistricting that occurred in 2012 so people (like myself) may be in different districts than previously and have different legislators. Redistricting doesn't take effect until January 9th. Also newly elected senators and legislators wont be seated / vote on legislation until January 9th.

Trent
January 2, 2013, 10:55 AM
Anyone have bill numbers yet?

BCCL
January 2, 2013, 10:55 AM
It seems that 59th district Senator Gary Forby does not want to hear from his constituents today. Nobody will answer his Benton office phone, and his Springfield number has been rerouted to a voice mail under the name "Bobby Dexter", and even the Capitol switchboard doesn't know why???

Benton Office (In-District)
618.439.2504

Springfield Office (State Capitol)
217.782.5509

Trent
January 2, 2013, 11:01 AM
Per IL Constitution;


Bills, except bills for appropriations and for the
codification, revision or rearrangement of laws, shall be
confined to one subject. Appropriation bills shall be limited
to the subject of appropriations.


If they tack the crap on as an amendment to the wrong sort of bill, it won't hold water as it will be unconstitutional.

Not that it would stop them.

C0untZer0
January 2, 2013, 12:11 PM
Someone came up with the term "anti-self defense" politicians, and I like it.

These guys are trying to keep a lid on their bill as much as possible and then they are going to call it for a vote at 5:30 tonight, try to rush it through ASAP, scream about Sandy Hook, steamroll over everyone and make anyone who votes against it look like a monster, and ram-rod it through.

It is important to call your Illinois Senator now.

Also I just want to give people a resource for getting very up-to-date information on the proceedings. At Illinoiscarry.com they have a volunteer who keeps track of all state 2A legislation and monitors the floor proceedings and posts results to the forum:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32812

The link above is actually only for today, there is a new thread for each day, more info can be found in the overall Ilinois Politics forum:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6

Geneseo1911
January 2, 2013, 01:05 PM
Folks-
There is no bill numbers yet. We will not know the bill numbers until they come up in committee this afternoon. Their plan is to move this very fast. They are going to amend bills that already passed the house so they do not have to have readings or multiple committee votes. By the time we know what bills to oppose, it may be too late. Call NOW!

C0untZer0
January 2, 2013, 01:27 PM
The Illinois Senate will be called to order this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. They'll go directly to committee meetings. Probably these ban bills will be heard by the Senate Public Health Committee in thier meeting scheduled for 5:30 this afternoon. Please call the members of this committee and ask them to oppose any gun ban bills that may come up for their consideration. Those members are:

Senator William Delgado - D - Chairperson, 217-782-5652
S. Mattie Hunter - D - 782-5966
S. Susan Garrett - D - 782-3650
S. Michael Noland - D - 782-7746
S. Jeffrey Schoenberg - D - 782-2119
S. Heather Steans - D - 782-8492
S. Dave Syverson - R - 782-5413
S. Shane Cultra - R - 782-6597
S. Christine Johnson - R - 782-1977
S. Carole Pankau - R - 782-9463

Be polite, courteous, concise. State your position and ask that they oppose any gun ban bills.

GlockFan
January 2, 2013, 03:15 PM
I have called them. Waiting to see the bill number and what exactly it says.

Trent
January 2, 2013, 05:39 PM
They piggybacked an assault weapons amendment on a Nuclear materials regulation bill. Totally unconstitutional, by the way, violates Article IV Section 8 (D) of the IL State Constitution.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB0815sam001&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=56601&DocNum=0815&GAID=11&Session=

Trent
January 2, 2013, 06:01 PM
HB1263 (previously a bill to strengthen penalties on sexual assault) was gutted and now is an assault weapons ban bill. It will be going to Public Health committee at 5:45 PM.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1263sam005&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=57242&DocNum=1263&GAID=11&Session=

Trent
January 2, 2013, 06:02 PM
So HB815 is a "high capacity ammunition feeding device" bill (formerly a nuclear regulatory bill), and

HB 1263 is now an "assault weapons" bill (formerly a bill which mandates life imprisonment for certain sexual offenders).

Trent
January 2, 2013, 06:27 PM
Public Health committee convenes in 15 minutes to vote on the amendments; if they go through it'll hit the Senate floor tomorrow.

armoredman
January 2, 2013, 06:44 PM
THIS is their answer to the 7th Circuit? Holy cow...the stage is set for a showdown of all Constitutional show downs...

Trent
January 2, 2013, 06:58 PM
Yup, dirty procedural play at it's finest.

I'll be guilty of over 400 felonies if this passes and I don't register everything.

(Or mis-count something.. or register something, then lose it.. or ... whatever)

Trent
January 2, 2013, 07:56 PM
Oh man.

They ain't done yet. They just filed an amendment to HB1237.

Now they're going after people's mental state. But.. excluding Police Officers. Because crazy cops are safer than the rest of us.

Anyone who volunteers for treatment in a mental health clinic, hospital, evaluation center, etc, would be denied the right to own weapons. (Previously this was limited to people to be adjudicated as mentally defective.) Now the ACT of getting treatment is enough to lose your rights, if this passes, REGARDLESS of what for.

Mild anxiety? Sleep disorder? Good bye guns....

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1237sam006&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=57208&DocNum=1237&GAID=11&Session

68wj
January 2, 2013, 08:30 PM
PTSD?

Trent
January 2, 2013, 08:46 PM
Assault weapon ban Passed Public Health 6-4

High cap ban up next.

Trent
January 2, 2013, 09:16 PM
High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device ban passed Public Health 6-4

Trent
January 2, 2013, 09:17 PM
No idea what committee the mental health one got assigned to (if any, yet).

The game is afoot, gentlemen. This stuff just got real.

charon
January 2, 2013, 10:26 PM
Just as important... call any gun owners you know and get them to make their calls. A lot of gun owners don't even know about this and many can be very complacent. Help them with the senator/rep contact info if you have the time. As a goal try to get at least 1 new person politically involved with their rights. GOTV

dreamer56
January 2, 2013, 10:46 PM
Anyone can call - you don't have to live in Illinois - contact information for our Senate President is here: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?GA=97&MemberID=1639

Next they will figure out when crimes commonly occur and they will try to legislate a curfew for all law abiding citizens. Sounds crazy? I thought this kind of gun law sounded too crazy to go this far as well....

powderx
January 2, 2013, 11:08 PM
This shouldn't surprise anyone in said state. Let's hope this all gets defeated.

Trent
January 2, 2013, 11:26 PM
Chicago Sun Times covered it.

This actually HELPS because it will ensure Representatives understand what a pile of crap the Senate is handing them back.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/17355054-418/illinois-senate-panel-oks-ban-on-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines.html

Two of the three bills are unconstitutional as amended though, according to IL State Constitution Article IV Section 8 (d).

The Assault Weapons ban was entered on a gutted criminal code bill, so if on it's OWN it were pushed through, it wouldn't violate said section.. HOWEVER, they ALSO included a range-licensing scheme on the bills!

So presto, these laws are VOID if passed due to IL State Constitution violations.

Single Subject rule:

http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/lljdocs/vol40_no4/vol40_issue4/Kasper.pdf

Dunno if it'd stand up to it.

BlueBronco
January 2, 2013, 11:34 PM
I joined the site in order to express my support to you folks in Illinois. Keep up the battle and never "give up the ship."

GlockFan
January 3, 2013, 12:03 AM
These politicians are insane. So if I LOSE a .50 caliber round I have to tell the police. And if I lose rounds 3 times I am now a felon for misplacing ammunition! :fire:

A person who possesses a valid Firearm Owner's
22 Identification Card and who possesses or acquires a
23 semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, a
24 .50 caliber rifle, or a .50 caliber cartridge and thereafter
25 loses or misplaces the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault

09700HB1263sam005 - 18 - LRB097 07183 JWD 73033 a

1 weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge
2 or the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault weapon
3 attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge is
4 stolen from the person, the person must report the loss or
5 theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after
6 obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft.

Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty
8 of a petty offense for a first violation. A second violation of
9 this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A third or subsequent
10 violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony.

C0untZer0
January 3, 2013, 12:07 AM
For people who didn't listen to the proceedings, one of the Chicago dem proponents of the bill repeatedly insinuated that 50 caliber rifles were a danger to shoot down planes at O'Hare.

I'm so upset over this I could violate THR posting rules...:cuss:

Trent
January 3, 2013, 12:28 AM
Compiled the full text of the three combined amendments on HB1263.

Part 1/2

AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 1263


AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 1263, AS AMENDED, as follows:
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290), found that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to possess a firearm, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense; and
WHEREAS, in that same decision, the United States Supreme Court also found that the individual right to possess and use a firearm was not unlimited, that the government has the ability to regulate the possession and use of firearms, and that this right "does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes", and that the government may ban entirely "dangerous and unusual weapons"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (No. 08-1521), found that its holding in the Heller case applied to the States, reiterating its findings regarding the validity of the regulation of the individual right to possess and use a firearm, and noting expressly that such incorporation of the holding in the Heller case via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "does not imperil every law regulating firearms";
therefore; and by replacing everything after the enacting clause with the following:
ARTICLE 1. ILLINOIS SHOOTING RANGE LICENSING ACT
Section 1-1. Short title. This Act shall be known as the Illinois Shooting Range Licensing Act.
Section 1-5. Definitions.
"Department" means the Department of State Police.
"Director" means the Director of State Police.
"Firearm" has the meaning provided in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
"Range safety officer" means a person who possesses the knowledge, skills, and aptitude essential to organizing, conducting and supervising safe shooting range activities, and who is certified under the National Rifle Association's Range Safety Officer Program or other equivalent nationally-recognized range safety officer certification.
"Shooting range" means a specialized facility designed for firearms practice.
"Shooting range activities" means target shooting and any other activities conducted at a shooting range involving the discharge or other use of firearms.
"Shooting range operator" means a person who is licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and who owns or operates a shooting range licensed by the Department under this Act.

Section 1-10. Shooting ranges and shooting range operators.
(a) Beginning on January 1, 2014, no person may own or operate a shooting range that is open to the public unless that shooting range has been issued a license by the Director under this Act.
(b) The Department shall license shooting ranges and shall promulgate rules regarding the standards for the ownership, safety, and operation of shooting ranges licensed under this Act, which at a minimum shall require that at all shooting range activities conducted at a licensed shooting range by persons other than the shooting range operator, or his or her immediate family, shall be carried out under the supervision of a range safety officer. The Department shall create standards for both indoor and outdoor shooting ranges, which shall include, at a minimum, the space required for each type of shooting range, and the nature and composition of the backstop, bullet trap, or berm required for each type of shooting range.
The Department may develop standards for indoor and outdoor shooting ranges that include maximum caliber ratings and whether magnum and other high-powered bullets can be safely fired into a given backstop, bullet trap, or berm. The Department shall promulgate any other rules it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including the establishment of fees charged and collected for licensing and the duration of licenses issued under this Act.

Section 1-15. Judicial review of final administrative decisions. All final administrative decisions of the Department under this Act, including final administrative decisions of the Director of State Police to deny an application for licensure for a shooting range, or to revoke the license of a shooting range, shall be subject to judicial review under the provisions of the Administrative Review Law, and all amendments and modifications thereof, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. The term "administrative decision" is defined as in Section 3-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 1-20. Firearms Owner's Identification Card.
(a) Only a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card may discharge a firearm on a shooting range licensed under this Act.
(b) No shooting range operator shall permit an individual to discharge a firearm on a shooting range licensed under this Act, until that individual shall have first displayed a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card to the shooting range operator or to the range safety officer.
Section 1-25. Exemptions. This Act shall not apply to a shooting range that is:
(a) Located on private land that is not open to the public.
(b) Located on land owned by clubs or other organizations that is open only to members of the club or other organization and their invited guests.
(c) Configured for use in trapshooting, skeet shooting, or sporting clays.
(d) Used solely by peace officers, as defined in Section 2-13 of the Criminal Code of 2012.
(e) Used solely by correctional officers employed by the Department of Corrections, or by county correctional officers or court security officers, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Police Training Act.
(f) Used solely by members of the Armed Services or Reserve Forces of the United States or the Illinois National Guard, while in the performance of their official duties.
(g) Used solely for air rifles, as defined by Section 24.8-0.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012.
Section 1-30. Sentence. A person who violates any provisionof this Act, or the rules promulgated under this Act, is guilty of a petty offense for a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of this Act, or the rules promulgated under this Act, is a Class A misdemeanor, and may be grounds for the revocation of the license of the shooting range by the Department.
Section 1-35. Home rule. A home rule unit may not regulate or license shooting ranges or shooting range operators in a manner more restrictive than the regulation by the Department of shooting ranges under this Act. This Section is a limitation on home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution on the concurrent exercise by home rule units of powers and functions exercised by the State. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the zoning authority of any home rule unit.

Trent
January 3, 2013, 12:29 AM
Part 2/2

ARTICLE 5.
Section 5-5. The Criminal Code of 2012 is amended by adding
Sections 24-1.9 and 24-4.1 as follows: (720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 new)
Sec. 24-1.9. Possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.
(a) Definitions. In this Section:
(1) "Semi-automatic assault weapon" means:
(A) any of the firearms or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as:
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and
(ix) any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semi-automatic rifle or pump-action rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:
(i) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(ii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(iii) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or
(v) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;
(C-1) a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(C-2) a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator;
(D) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
"Semi-automatic assault weapon" does not include:
(A) any firearm that:
(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
(ii) is an unserviceable firearm or has been made permanently inoperable, as defined by 27 C.F.R. 478.11;
(iii) is an antique firearm; or
(iv) is a rifle with a fixed tubular magazine located under the barrel that is only capable of holding rounds of ammunition placed end to end;
(B) any air rifle as defined in Section 24.8-0.1 of this Code.
For the purposes of this Section, a firearm is considered to have the ability to accept a detachable magazine unless the magazine or ammunition feeding device can only be removed through disassembly of the firearm action.
(2) "Assault weapon attachment" means any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for, or when installed will have the effect of, making or converting a firearm into any of the firearms listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section.
(3) "Antique firearm" has the meaning ascribed to it in 18 U.S.C. Section 921 (a)(16).
(4) ".50 caliber rifle" means a centerfire rifle capable of firing a .50 caliber cartridge. The term does not include any antique firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921 (a)(16), any shotgun including a shotgun that has a rifle barrel, or any muzzle loading rifle or shotgun which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition.
(5) ".50 caliber cartridge" means a cartridge in .50 BMG caliber, as defined by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Standardization Agreement 4383, either by designation or actual measurement, that is capable of being fired from a centerfire rifle. The term ".50 caliber cartridge" does not include any memorabilia or display item that is filled with a permanent inert substance or that is otherwise permanently altered in a manner that prevents ready modification for use as live ammunition or shotgun ammunition with a caliber measurement that is equal to or greater than .50 caliber.
(6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle, shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.
(a-5) The Department of State Police shall take all steps necessary to carry out the requirements of this Section within 150 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c) and (d), 240 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly possess a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, a .50 caliber rifle, or a .50 caliber cartridge.
(c) This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, a .50 caliber rifle, or a .50 caliber cartridge prohibited by subsection (b-5) before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly provided that the person has provided proof of ownership, his or her name, and other identifying information, as the Department of State Police may direct, including, but not limited to, the individual's Firearm Owner's Identification Card number and the description and serial number (if any) of each weapon or attachment, to the Department of State Police, as required by the Department, on or after 150 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly but within 240 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly. Beginning 240 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly, the person may transfer the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge 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 under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Within 10 days after transfer of the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge, the person shall notify the Department of State Police of the name and address of the transferee and comply with the requirements of subsection (b) of Section 3 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. The Department shall promulgate any rules it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection, and may utilize emergency rule making under Section 5-45 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act in its initial implementation of the provisions of this subsection only.
(c-5) For the purpose of receiving and processing the information required to be submitted under subsection (c), the Department of State Police shall charge a registration fee of $10 per semi-automatic assault weapon or assault weapon attachment, and $15 per .50 caliber rifle. The fees collected under this subsection shall be deposited into the LEADS Maintenance Fund."
(d) This Section does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(1) Peace officers as defined in Section 2-13 of this Code.
(2) Wardens, superintendents, and keepers of prisons, penitentiaries, jails, and other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of an offense.
(3) Members of the Armed Services or Reserve Forces of the United States or the Illinois National Guard, while in the performance of their official duties or while traveling to or from their place of duty.
(4) The manufacture, transportation, or distribution of weapons, attachments, or ammunition.
(5) The sale of weapons, attachments, or ammunition to persons authorized to possess those items under subdivisions (1) through (3) or subdivision (7) of this subsection.
(6) The manufacture, transportation, distribution, or sale of weapons, attachments, or ammunition for sale or transfer in another state.
(7) The possession of any firearm if that firearm is sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, but only when the firearm is in the actual possession of an Olympic target shooting competitor or target shooting coach for the purpose of storage, transporting to and from Olympic target shooting practice or events if the firearm is broken down in a non-functioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, and when the Olympic target shooting competitor or target shooting coach is engaging in those practices or events. For the purposes of this paragraph (7), "firearm" is defined in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
(8) The possession of a semi-automatic assault weapon only for a hunting use expressly permitted under the Wildlife Code, or while traveling to or from a location authorized for such hunting use under the Wildlife Code if the weapon is broken down in a non-functioning state, or are not immediately accessible, or are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container.
(9) The manufacture, transportation, possession, sale, or rental of blank-firing semi-automatic assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles, or the weapons' respective attachments, to persons authorized or permitted, or both authorized and permitted to acquire and possess such weapons for the purposes of rental for use solely as props for a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event.
(e) Shooting Ranges.
(1) A shooting range operator may deliver, sell, purchase, or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon, or an assault weapon attachment, for the purpose of operating, using, or storing the same on the shooting range owned or operated by the shooting range operator, including traveling to and from the shooting range for purposes of purchase, sale, repair, or valuation of the semi-automatic assault weapon or assault weapon attachment. The delivery or sale of a semi-automatic assault weapon, or an assault weapon attachment, by a shooting range operator may only be to a person who may otherwise lawfully possess the semi-automatic assault weapon or assault weapon attachment.
(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this Section to the contrary, a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card may possess, operate, and use a semi-automatic assault weapon or an assault weapon attachment leased from a shooting range operator, while on the shooting range owned or operated by the shooting range operator. A shooting range operator may lease the use of a semi-automatic assault weapon, or an assault weapon attachment, to a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card for the purpose of operating or using the same on the shooting range owned or operated by the shooting range operator. A leased semi-automatic assault weapon or an assault weapon attachment may not be removed from the shooting range by the individual leasing the semi-automatic assault weapon or assault weapon attachment.
(3) A shooting range operator must register any semi-automatic assault weapons or assault weapon attachments owned as provided for under subsection (c). A shooting range operator may acquire semi-automatic assault weapons or assault weapon attachments after January 1, 2014, and any semi-automatic assault weapons or assault weapon attachments so acquired must also be registered as provided for under subsection (c).
(4) For purposes of this subsection:
(i) "Shooting range operator" means a person who is licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and who owns or operates a shooting range licensed under the Illinois Shooting Range Licensing Act.
(ii) "Shooting range" means a shooting range licensed under the Illinois Shooting Range Licensing Act.
(f) Sentence.
(1) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases, or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, directly or indirectly, a semi-automatic assault weapon in violation of this Section commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent violation or for the possession or delivery of 2 or more of these weapons at the same time.
(2) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases, or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, directly or indirectly, in violation of this Section an assault weapon attachment commits a Class 4 felony for a first violation and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent violation.
(3) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases, or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, directly or indirectly, in violation of this Section a .50 caliber rifle commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent violation or for the possession or delivery of 2 or more of these weapons at the same time.
(4) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases, or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, directly or indirectly, in violation of this Section a .50 caliber cartridge commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(5) Any other violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(720 ILCS 5/24-4.1 new)
Sec. 24-4.1. Report of lost or stolen semi-automatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge.
(a-5) A person who possesses a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and who possesses or acquires a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, a .50 caliber rifle, or a .50 caliber cartridge and thereafter loses or misplaces the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge or the semi-automatic assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge is stolen from the person, the person must report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft.
(b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a petty offense for a first violation. A second violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A third or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony.
ARTICLE 9.
Section 9-97. Severability. The provisions of this Act are severable under Section 1.31 of the Statute on Statutes.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect July 1, 2013.

Trent
January 3, 2013, 12:32 AM
Screw the 50 ammo (and I'm a 50 BMG owner); this passage alone should get everyone in an uproar:

(C-1) a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(C-2) a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator;

That effectively bans EVERY semi-automatic pistol and rifle.

This is - by far - the most stringent weapons ban that I've ever heard of in the USA. This is even stricter than California.

This will leave us with:

A) Lever and bolt action rifles under 50 cal
B) Revolvers
C) Breech load shotguns (as extended "tubes" exist for taking most semiauto shotguns above 5 rounds)

mrokern
January 3, 2013, 01:29 AM
This is worrisome, even for those of us outside Illinois. I'm honestly beginning to think the bliss-ninnies are oblivious as to the danger of the fire they are playing with.

Clinton
January 3, 2013, 09:00 AM
If I went against something my boss finds as a corporate value i would be fired. The people are the boss. They are defying us and not listening and going against the core values of the constitution. No person in their right mind should have said yes to this. Maybe the yeas were cowards and dont wanna deal w it and passung it through so someone else can deal w it. However if this happened 100 years ago the civiluans would have grabbed arms and marched to the capitol and fired their reps so to speak.....

Clinton

stonecutter2
January 3, 2013, 09:33 AM
Two of the three bills are unconstitutional as amended though, according to IL State Constitution Article IV Section 8 (d).


Chicago's handgun ban and Illinois' complete ban on carry in any form were unconstitutional too - didn't stop this ridiculous state from stomping on people's rights.

stonecutter2
January 3, 2013, 09:35 AM
Screw the 50 ammo (and I'm a 50 BMG owner); this passage alone should get everyone in an uproar:

(C-1) a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(C-2) a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator;

That effectively bans EVERY semi-automatic pistol and rifle.

This is - by far - the most stringent weapons ban that I've ever heard of in the USA. This is even stricter than California.

This will leave us with:

A) Lever and bolt action rifles under 50 cal
B) Revolvers
C) Breech load shotguns (as extended "tubes" exist for taking most semiauto shotguns above 5 rounds)
Absolutely.

I guess all the talk of 2A rights, and defending freedom, doesn't apply to us here in Illinois. Nobody else cares about us.

Is anyone paying attention around here? This is an absolute outrage. I would expect this post to be about 100 pages long now, with people calling and insisting that this insanity is reigned in. Why this isn't getting the coverage it needs, and there isn't a huge drive to fight it, is beyond me. This should be motivating people across these forums, yet we barely have 2 pages of comments. Really pretty pathetic, in my opinion.

I think I'm realizing just how much hot air is being blown around this place.

Jeff White
January 3, 2013, 09:55 AM
Keep calling, but stop the panic and relax. These got out of committee on party line votes. They still have to pass the entire senate before they get to the house. You guys do realize that these bills will require a super majority to pass don't you?

Read this:

A home rule unit may not regulate or license shooting ranges or shooting range operators in a manner more restrictive than the regulation by the Department of shooting ranges under this Act. This Section is a limitation on home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution on the concurrent exercise by home rule units of powers and functions exercised by the State. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the zoning authority of any home rule unit.

The law affects home rule entities so just like concealed carry, it will require a super majority to pass.

Keep the pressure on the legislature, but stop the hand wringing panic. It's not a lost cause.

dom1104
January 3, 2013, 10:14 AM
ITS A LOST CAUSE!

http://i.imgur.com/wXpCO.gif

klcmschlesinger
January 3, 2013, 10:26 AM
dom1104, now that was worth a good laugh. Thank as my stress level was getting too high.

ksninew
January 3, 2013, 10:48 AM
Wrote to my Senator again today. Have also been trying to call her office but can't through. Yesterday had no problem.

stonecutter2
January 3, 2013, 10:48 AM
Keep calling, but stop the panic and relax. These got out of committee on party line votes. They still have to pass the entire senate before they get to the house. You guys do realize that these bills will require a super majority to pass don't you?

Read this:



The law affects home rule entities so just like concealed carry, it will require a super majority to pass.

Keep the pressure on the legislature, but stop the hand wringing panic. It's not a lost cause.
It's not so much panic, as it is the fact that I've seen countless threads and discussion about hypothetical bans and laws...well here's a real thing that a legislature is trying to push through, maybe the first real attempt? And hardly a discussion going on it.

stonecutter2
January 3, 2013, 10:49 AM
dom1104, now that was worth a good laugh. Thank as my stress level was getting too high.
Yeah agreed. Some comic relief is always appreciated!

charon
January 3, 2013, 10:57 AM
Here's a funny thought I just had. This is so overreaching it hardly makes sense even as an initial negotiating position. The antis would clearly love to see this happen but as pointed out it is so extreme even if it passed a super majority it would face a hard time in the courts post Heller. You would think they could potentially come in with something simpler like a magazine limit say on new sales in and to IL and maybe get a success with this last minute tactic.

Now, they are also trying to push though the lame duck legislature gay marriage. Could this be an effort at deal swapping or even providing cover for republicans to support the gay marriage effort under the guise of deal swapping?

stonecutter2
January 3, 2013, 11:21 AM
Called again today. Got voicemail at the Senator's office (left a message), and talked to someone at the Representative's office who fully agreed with my statement:

"We need to stop the criminals from using guns, not turn gun owners into criminals."

Quick Draw McGraw
January 3, 2013, 11:22 AM
Delurking for this. I've contacted both my Representative and Senator.

That is an interesting thought charon. When are they supposed to be taking any action on the gay marriage issue? If it is also soon I could see it as a possibility.

Also it has occurred to me too that this is a bit of a surprising tactic. Plus won't the democrats have a super-majority in a few days? It was my understanding that they don't have that yet since the new legislature doesn't take office until the 8th or 9th or so.

I wonder if the fact that this is so radical presents us with an opportunity - A "more moderate," for lack of a better term, awb might have a better chance of getting passed in IL. But I'm holding out hope that this crazy one might not get through. And obviously these bills are so radical that in most states they would never even be considered, but maybe if we can defeat it, we can get some momentum going. After all, if you can't get an assault weapons ban through in Illinois, where could you get one through? The only prime suspects I can think of already have one.

Jeff White
January 3, 2013, 11:36 AM
Plus won't the democrats have a super-majority in a few days? It was my understanding that they don't have that yet since the new legislature doesn't take office until the 8th or 9th or so.

The gun issue in Illinois has never been a party line issue. There are plenty of collar county republicans who support gun control.

Gun control is a regional issue in Illinois. Even if the democrats have their super majority in the next general assembly, they have no support from Southern Illinois democrats on the gun control issue. Usually only the East St Louis reps vote with the Chicago democrats on this issue.

I just received this in an email from the ISRA:

ISRA Notice:
Phones At ISRA Headquarters - A Little Busy
We would like the membership to know our phone lines are ringing non-stop in the office. As anticipated, some of those calls are being put through to our answering machine because we can’t get to all of them. We will return calls as soon as we can so we ask for your continued patience during this very busy time.

Thank you for your understanding.

Let's keep the phones in the capitol ringing too!

Quick Draw McGraw
January 3, 2013, 11:44 AM
Ok, gotcha Jeff thanks for the info.

Man why can't they just be happy with their Cook County awb then? (Not that I support that either, but obviously the anti-gun people in Chicago wishing to impose their will on the rest of the state never ceases to be infuriating. I know, preaching to choir.) Rhetorical.

VVelox
January 3, 2013, 12:04 PM
Called. Going to email them post running some errands.

Clinton
January 3, 2013, 12:35 PM
Go here and submit a witness slip opposing the two top bills. 815 and 1263.

http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/HearingDetail/10412?CommitteeHearings-page=1&CommitteeHearings-orderBy&CommitteeHearings-filter&_=1357221355842


Clinton

RTU
January 3, 2013, 01:20 PM
Go here and submit a witness slip opposing the two top bills. 815 and 1263.

http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/HearingDetail/10412?CommitteeHearings-page=1&CommitteeHearings-orderBy&CommitteeHearings-filter&_=1357221355842


Clinton
Has been done and done!

Clinton
January 3, 2013, 01:30 PM
Thanks guys. I emails that to @ 200 family members.

Clinton

charon
January 3, 2013, 01:39 PM
Quick Draw, my understanding is the same lame duck session. Quinn is also, apparently, working some pension reform deal in the same session.

hso
January 3, 2013, 01:52 PM
Will any of this be relevant since the House isn't in session or is it just grand standing at the end of the "year" for effect?

Clinton
January 3, 2013, 01:56 PM
Might be to bargain against the ccw legislation coming up.

Clinton

OpelBlitz
January 3, 2013, 02:07 PM
There's nothing that can be done - we are getting CCW no matter how badly they don't want us to have it. Now, what IS up for discussion is how it'd be implemented.

AK47TIM
January 3, 2013, 02:20 PM
URGENT! Everyone needs to go to this link and file witness slips in opposition to the bills listed. Check record of appearance only. All fields must be filled out put an NA to anything that does not apply. Make sure to choose opponent and do it for all four listed. Again make sure to choose opponent. http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/HearingDetail/10412?CommitteeHearings-page=1&CommitteeHearings-orderBy=&CommitteeHearings-filter=&_=1357221355842

Trent
January 3, 2013, 03:00 PM
Executive committee pushed to 2:15 PM

Appears the bills won't hit the floor for a vote today.

Clinton
January 3, 2013, 03:13 PM
Wahoo the bills are dead in the water! Congrats to everyone who participated in the efforts. Nice to see we can still be heard and make a change when we all speak as one voice!

Clinton

68wj
January 3, 2013, 03:17 PM
Wahoo the bills are dead in the water! Congrats to everyone who participated in the efforts. Nice to see we can still be heard and make a change when we all speak as one voice!

Clinton
Reference? :)

Trent
January 3, 2013, 03:18 PM
Wahoo the bills are dead in the water! Congrats to everyone who participated in the efforts. Nice to see we can still be heard and make a change when we all speak as one voice!

Clinton

It's not dead until senate sine die at the end of the 97th... there's talk about them staying late tonight and cancelling the session tomorrow.

I'll be watching / listening until the senate adjourns. Even if they are just a bunch of gas-bags stroking each other's egos today.

BCCL
January 3, 2013, 03:22 PM
"Democrats pull plug on gun, ammo bans"

http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/democrats-pull-plug-on-gun-ammo-bans/article_32f17fc4-55db-11e2-a7a7-001a4bcf887a.html

mokin
January 3, 2013, 03:36 PM
Nice job everyone who participated. This sent a message to those with an anti-gun agenda and those sitting on the fence where the public's sentment is on restricting firearm ownership.

C0untZer0
January 3, 2013, 04:20 PM
There was an incredible swell of opposition to this from gun owners. The phones were ringing off the hook. Senator's aids couldn't answer all the calls and many went to voice mail. Senators voice mail boxes were full and couldn't take any more messages. One member of IllinoisCarry.com who faxes stuff said the faxes were backed up.

I think the ILGA website slowed down this morning, at least it seemed that way to me and I am guessing it was because so many people were going to the site to create witness slips.

I feel very good about this, and the politicians who want to deny people the right to defend themselves must see the writing on the wall. Some kind of carry legislation is coming to Illinois and the anti-gun (anti-self-defense) forces are not going to be able to dictate what that carry bill looks like.

arizona_cards_11
January 3, 2013, 04:56 PM
These bills failing is proof that the Chicago goons and their thuggery don't rule the state. Downstate Illinois is full of honest, hardworking individuals that won't stand for their rights to be trampled on.

Roverrich
January 3, 2013, 05:29 PM
Thanks to all of us, we succeeded, but only for now....

This is just the start of the fight and we need to stay on guard to watch for actions like this again.

More importantly, we as responsible gun owners need to get the message out to our non "gun people" friends. There is a common misperception of what "semi automatic" or assault rifle means. People confuse these two terms with "full auto" or consider them synonymous with "machine guns". We need to stay united and educate people in a rational fashion, know your statitics and keep to the message. We will prevail!

Creature
January 3, 2013, 05:29 PM
Now that's scary stuff right there....

Onmilo
January 3, 2013, 06:12 PM
Quinn has so little support it is highly unlikely he will get any support for anything he has endorsed.
Even the Democrats here are getting sick of his dribble.

powderx
January 3, 2013, 07:33 PM
They won't stop.

Trent
January 3, 2013, 08:34 PM
HB1237 passed the floor vote.

That one is nasty.

It can be construed to ban any gun owner who's been treated for ANY mental condition at any clinic, hospital, or Dr. office within the last 5 years, while exempting law enforcement from the same requirements.

(They REMOVED the requirement that the person is adjudicated as mentally disabled)

So .. you got insomnia?

No guns.

You got an antidepressant for anxiety?

No guns.

JFtheGR8
January 3, 2013, 09:02 PM
I believe it is dead, at least for now.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

BCCL
January 3, 2013, 09:27 PM
HB1237 passed

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1237&GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=84&GA=97

JFtheGR8
January 3, 2013, 10:51 PM
HB1237 passed

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...ionID=84&GA=97

The average citizen has Dr-patient confidentiality so how do they prove anything? Whereas a police officer may not have the same confidentiality.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Trent
January 3, 2013, 11:01 PM
The average citizen has Dr-patient confidentiality so how do they prove anything? Whereas a police officer may not have the same confidentiality.


You mean to tell me you don't see ANY way that could be abused???

Imagine a relationship going south.. a phone call to the cops. "He's on antidepressants and has firearms."

Off to jail you go....

briangsxr600
January 3, 2013, 11:41 PM
How many veterans who have any form of PTSD will this law affect. If you count people who have to see the head doc while processing to be out of the military does that count against them. This bill is a joke and just a way to get the guns out of as many people as they can.

JFtheGR8
January 3, 2013, 11:49 PM
Not saying it's not a piece of garbage legislation. Just saying it's not a ban on anything. It should not pass in it's current form. There should be exceptions for certain treatable disorders.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Cooldill
January 4, 2013, 01:35 AM
I wish Chicago would break off and float into space. Thank God we avoided the worst of what could have happened, but like others have said we need to keep pressing with this fight and if anything increase our activism. I know I will be doing just that!

stonecutter2
January 4, 2013, 09:54 AM
How many veterans who have any form of PTSD will this law affect. If you count people who have to see the head doc while processing to be out of the military does that count against them. This bill is a joke and just a way to get the guns out of as many people as they can.
Strictly my opinion, but if someone has PTSD and is admitted voluntarily or involuntarily to a mental institution (as the bill describes), I don't think they should have access to firearms until they're all better.

I also don't see how this bill gets guns out of as many people as they can - it's rather specific and redefines "mental hospital" as "mental institution" and then describes what those institutions are.

I don't see how this bill is necessarily a gun grab at all.

Short of defining all gun owners as mentally ill and involuntarily admitting them into institutions, I don't see how this affects the average gun owner.

Quite frankly, mentally ill people ARE the problem in our latest shootings.

I'm not saying it's the best piece of legislation I've ever seen, but short of massive fraud and abuse, I think this is actually an attempt to improve the laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who are genuinely mentally ill.

stonecutter2
January 4, 2013, 09:59 AM
You mean to tell me you don't see ANY way that could be abused???

Imagine a relationship going south.. a phone call to the cops. "He's on antidepressants and has firearms."

Off to jail you go....
Any law can be abused.

And if you're being treated with antidepressants, that's not going to get you in jail because of the bill. If you're treated with antidepressants and are put into a mental institution, then yeah your gun rights are revoked. But shouldn't that be the case?

Why should a mentally ill person have guns?

Trent
January 4, 2013, 10:53 AM
Guys, they OPENED the definition of "mental institution" in this version of the bill.

Don't focus on the LEO exemption. READ ALL of the changes.

They EXPAND "mental institution" to include clinics, hospitals, etc, etc (clinic = Dr. office).

They DELETE the requirement that you are JUDGED mentally unsound or have to be COMMITTED.

This is NOT good, for a LOT of gun owners.

The way this bill is written, having a doctor treat you for ANY MENTAL ILLNESS - sleep disorders, whatever - is sufficient to have your firearms rights revoked for 5 years.

Clinton
January 4, 2013, 10:57 AM
Not out of the woods yet!

http://isra.org/alerts/weekinreview.html

Clinton

Trent
January 4, 2013, 11:02 AM
Not over yet!


Todd has reported that the Chicago Mayor and the Governor have decided to pursue the dsame Bills in the House beginning on Sunday January 6 when the House re-convenes for the 'lame duck' session.

Please immediately call your State Representative at both his/her home district office and at his/her Springfield office.

This is another desperate attempt to underhandedly usurp the process by using a lame duck session to push through an obviously unconstitutional law.

Please contact everyone you know that loves freedom and lives in Illinois. We absolutely must stop this before it even starts.


http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32915

Jeff White
January 4, 2013, 11:05 AM
Trent said;

They EXPAND "mental institution" to include clinics, hospitals, etc, etc (clinic = Dr. office).

No they didn't say if you go to your family doctor for treatment of a sleep disorder you use your firearms rights. The text of the bill defines "Mental Institution" as a facility used primarily for the care and treatment of persons with mental illness. Unless your family doctor is a psychiatrist his office doesn't fit the definition of a mental institution. Neither does the sleep clinic of your local hospital.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1237sam006&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=&DocNum=1237&GAID=11&Session=

"Mental institution" means any hospital, institution,
17 clinic, evaluation facility, mental health center, or part
18 thereof, which is used primarily for the care or treatment of
19 persons with mental illness.

BCCL
January 4, 2013, 11:27 AM
Not over yet........

From IL. Carry

House staff has called to let us know that the Governor and Chicago Mayor will attempt a gun and magazine ban when the House reconvenes for the lame duck session.

They will reconvene on Sunday at 5pm

Call your Representative's local and Springfield office. Do it today, then fill up their machines tomorrow if no one's answering their phones on Saturday, then on Sunday as they should be open. The House comes into session at 5:00 p.m.

Light up the Speaker's offices too. Here's a link to his contact info with fax lines, etc. His Springfield office number in the Capitol is (217) 782-581-8000. His office in Chicago is (773) 581-8000. Start the calls now.

Call the Governor: Springfield: (217) 782-0244, Chicago: (312) 814-2121

Trent
January 4, 2013, 12:02 PM
Trent said;



No they didn't say if you go to your family doctor for treatment of a sleep disorder you use your firearms rights. The text of the bill defines "Mental Institution" as a facility used primarily for the care and treatment of persons with mental illness. Unless your family doctor is a psychiatrist his office doesn't fit the definition of a mental institution. Neither does the sleep clinic of your local hospital.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1237sam006&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=&DocNum=1237&GAID=11&Session=



1 (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of
2 firearms or firearm ammunition when:

12 (4) He has been a patient in a mental institution
13 within the past 5 years and has any firearms or
14 firearm ammunition in his possession. For purposes of this
15 paragraph (4):
16 "Mental institution" means any hospital,
17 institution, clinic, evaluation facility, mental
18 health center, or part thereof, which is used primarily
19 for the care or treatment of persons with mental
20 illness.
21 "Patient in a mental institution" means the person
22 was admitted, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to
23 a mental institution for mental health treatment,
24 unless the treatment was voluntary and solely for an
25 alcohol abuse disorder and no other secondary
26 substance abuse disorder or mental illness; or


"Or part thereof"

The way I'm reading this, if you're admitted to the ER or urgent care of a hospital (all of which have "parts" of the whole which are dedicated to the treatment of mental health)... and are subsequently treated for a mental disorder (of any kind), you meet the requirements.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, not a lawyer.

Jeff White
January 4, 2013, 12:43 PM
The way I'm reading this, if you're admitted to the ER or urgent care of a hospital (all of which have "parts" of the whole which are dedicated to the treatment of mental health)... and are subsequently treated for a mental disorder (of any kind), you meet the requirements.

Is this the scenario you are worried about? You are involved in an auto accident and you go the ER to get checked out. The hospital you went to has a psych unit. You are treated and released with a referral back to your family Dr. and he treats you for something like post traumatic headaches related to cervical strain from the crash and the next day the ISP drops by the house to pick up your FOID card and seize all of your firearms and ammunition.

If so, I think you are reading a lot into the law that simply isn't there. In the scenario I just laid out, you were never admitted to the psych unit at that hospital so you were never admitted to or treated in a mental institution.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, not a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer either, but my job involves reading and applying the law and if I do have a doubt I can pick up the phone and call one of the states attorneys and get their read on it.

Trent
January 4, 2013, 06:06 PM
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB2899ham001&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=63457&DocNum=2899&GAID=11&Session

Acevedo gutted a senate bill, introduced to house today.

briangsxr600
January 4, 2013, 06:22 PM
For most people who have not used the VA they have no clue how it works. Lets say you lost some friends and your down your primary care doc will put in for mental health doc that will make you lose your foid card. As far as PTSD I know many people who have it and I trust them with my life. You can have it from falling off a roof and getting paralyzed. PTSD has nothing to do with how people can deal with things, or the ability to be a safe gun owner.

barnbwt
January 4, 2013, 09:10 PM
No they didn't say if you go to your family doctor for treatment of a sleep disorder you use your firearms rights. The text of the bill defines "Mental Institution" as a facility used primarily for the care and treatment of persons with mental illness. Unless your family doctor is a psychiatrist his office doesn't fit the definition of a mental institution. Neither does the sleep clinic of your local hospital.

Wait, so no matter how trivial the diagnosis, you'd lose rights for 5 years? I've heard it said (by everyone from comedians to actual doctors) that anyone can be diagnosed with some sort of minor mental variance with a name. A poorly-focused kid in college who gets prescribed Adderol is somehow incapable of being trusted with their own safety, all of a suddern? A ton of kids in highschools are on ADHD or depression drugs--they now can't be trusted with a firearm until years later, even though they'd remain elgible for the draft?

Sounds like any sane gun-owner with minor mental health problems would shy away from treatment or even consultation if at all possible. My great uncle saw a therapist for a number of weeks following the death of his wife of fifty years, and was diagnosed (by the therapist; I don't know if they necessarily count as a "mental health" professional at a clinic) with short-duration depression. Am I wrong, or would he lose access to all the dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition because of human grief under this law?

TCB

VVelox
January 4, 2013, 09:24 PM
barnbwt, as he went to location that would now qualify as a mental institution, yes.

If it passes, never talk to a shrink or go any were near any thing in that category, if one wants a FOID or wishes to keep theirs.

OpelBlitz
January 4, 2013, 09:30 PM
That's SUCH a load of crap. I'm so sick of this garbage. Hope congress does the right thing and keeps that crap from becoming law. My reps are going to get tired of hearing from me. lol

Captain*kirk
January 5, 2013, 12:38 AM
This is mind bending, and the scenery keeps changing. Where are we now, and what action should we take?
Is calling really effective or is emailing (in writing) a better tactic? Are phone calls actually recorded as received or a "yeah, right, OK" thing?

Jeff White
January 5, 2013, 01:20 AM
Are phone calls actually recorded as received or a "yeah, right, OK" thing?

The legislative staffs keep track of the phone calls both pro and con. Call, fax, email, call some more...be polite.

Captain*kirk
January 5, 2013, 01:38 AM
10-4.
I sense we are under attack as never before in almost every state and that these nutjobs will not quit until mission accomplished.

Lone Ranger
January 5, 2013, 03:52 AM
I've been following this along with reading both Bills. My take after watching politics in Chicago and Illinois is that the reason there were two separate Bills is so the compromise will be to drop the AW ban in favor of the magazine ban. Knowing if both were combined there would be the fear that both could be defeated in one vote, but separately a compromised can be acted on.

This all may be tied in with CCW down the road. One never knows what the pols have up their sleeves.

I agree that the SC never said what type of weapon you are entitled to. I'd hate to have the SC decide on the Constitutionality of the type of weapon that is applicable to the 2nd Amendment.

Geneseo1911
January 5, 2013, 10:38 AM
Calls work IF we swamp them. When the voicemail is full and the secretary is exhausted, they get the message. We have to show OVERWHELMING opposition. Remember that most of these legislators (both sides) know very little about guns. What they do know about is how to gauge how pissed off their constituents are based on the number of phone calls they get. They talk to each other. Downstate dems know that if it passes, it will be hung around their neck (rightly, they put Madigan and Cullerton into power every Session), so they stick together to keep it from getting passed. If they don't hear that message loud and clear, that is when Emmanuel and all the other power brokers can peel them off.

Jeff White
January 5, 2013, 11:58 AM
My take from reading these bills is that they seem to be written in anger. It's almost like they are flipping off the USSC and the 7th circuit for the losses they have had. A legislative temper tantrum so to speak. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so serious.

Keep calling!!

Geneseo1911
January 5, 2013, 12:55 PM
That is what gets me, Jeff. I was worried about the Senate bills, but am SLIGHTLY less worried about them getting traction in the house, mainly because the House has already killed MUCH less onerous bills than this, in this GA. Which begs the question, why? The cabal that runs IL NEVER does something without a purpose. If they wanted new gun restrictions, they would be able to pass something, but they have to know that something as outlandish as the bills proposed this week are unlikely to make it. So what are they doing? I'm guessing they are probing for weaknesses to try and figure out who they need to work on to get their may-issue bill passed, as well as gauging the organization and motivation of pro-2A forces. More of a reason for an overwhelming show of force by our side.

Trent
January 5, 2013, 12:56 PM
My take from reading these bills is that they seem to be written in anger. It's almost like they are flipping off the USSC and the 7th circuit for the losses they have had. A legislative temper tantrum so to speak. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so serious.

Keep calling!!

I concur.

I further believe they are doing this as an act of intimidation, trying to gain a "chip" in the game for the upcoming CCW battle that's front and center before next summer.

mf-dif
January 5, 2013, 04:22 PM
SB2899 to be voted on SUNDAY Jan. 6th. which again in the same week reintroduces weapons ban. Voicemail boxes full this morning. I might be reposting, but here is an email address list.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz | enekritz@repnekritz.org
Rep. John Bradley| repjohnbradley@mychoice.net
Rep. Jil Tracy | jiltracy@jiltracy.com
Rep. Michael Connelly | Repconnelly48@gmail.com
Rep. Dwight Kay | dwightkay112@gmail.com
Rep. Lou Lang | reploulang@aol.com
Rep. Sid Mathias | repmathias@hotmail.com
Rep. André M. Thapedi | rep32district@gmail.com
Rep. Arthur Turner | turneral@ilga.gov (email delivery failure, could be full)
Rep. Ann Williams | ann@repannwilliams.com
Rep. Michael Zalewski | michaelz@ilga.gov

Roverrich
January 5, 2013, 05:20 PM
I have sent at least a dozen emails, faxes and notified my friends to do the same. Bump here to keep the thread active and at the top. Folks, the fight is here, let's keep working to protect our constitutional rights!

MCMXIautomatic
January 5, 2013, 06:04 PM
I live out of state, but I'll go ahead and see if I can contact some of these folks. Maybe I could threaten not to spend any money in IL or do business with IL companies.

kbbailey
January 5, 2013, 06:19 PM
My state rep is my personal friend. We went to grade school together, and our kids go to school together now.

He told me last nite that he sent out over 7000 postcards in response to messages left on his office phone.

Ill state rep David Reis.
Pro 2a

MCMXIautomatic
January 6, 2013, 06:33 AM
Here is what I have typed up to send to Illinois state reps. I'd like to get some input and see your suggestions on what could/should be changed, added, condensed, or eliminated.


Dear Representative -------------,

Like millions of other Americans, I was horrified and saddened by the events in Newtown, Connecticut. I know that legislators all over the country are under pressure to do something to prevent these shootings from happening in the future. We would all like a workable solution to be found, but Illinois gun owners also want their rights to be respected and left alone. What I have seen in the last couple of weeks from Obama, certain people in Congress, the media, the anti-gun lobby, and lawmakers at the state level is perhaps some of the most disgusting and reprehensible political opportunism and exploitation of innocent deaths in recent memory. What I am seeing right now is more than just a knee-jerk, emotional reaction. I’m seeing an organized and concerted effort to capitalize on a horrible tragedy for the purpose of pushing through an agenda to ban guns and destroy another of our already dwindling rights at both the federal and state levels.

I'm contacting you today to inform you that Illinois gun owners are paying very close attention to the anti-gun bills that have been introduced in the state legislature. These outlandish and unconstitutional assaults on the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms are not appreciated. Also, do not think that gun owners in other states will turn a blind eye and quietly allow the evisceration of gun rights in Illinois. All gun owners know that a successful assault on the rights of Americans anywhere will embolden those who would attack them everywhere. I understand that you are being pressured to do something that would help prevent incidents like Newtown from occurring again, but as a gun owner, I cannot and will not allow the destruction of my Second Amendment rights.

In the several bills that have been introduced, there are proposed restrictions that are so broad and so sweeping that they would ban virtually all lawfully owned firearms in the state. They also propose measures that would criminalize every lawful gun owner, shut down shooting ranges, and make gun ownership so expensive and so restrictive that it would be impracticable. Of course, none of these bills would do anything to affect firearms illegally possessed by convicted felons and madmen, or stop their use in the commission of crime and mass murder. The slew of legislation that has been introduced seeks to label virtually every lawfully owned and possessed rifle, shotgun, and pistol as an "assault weapon". Aside from the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a vague blanket term with no technical meaning, the firearms that would be banned are, in fact, used for a variety of lawful purposes including defense of one's home and family, as is the intent of the Second Amendment. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and cannot be defined within the context of "sporting purposes", although firearms such as the AR-15 are in fact widely used for hunting, bench-rest match shooting, and three gun competitions. As I mentioned before, gun owners are keenly aware that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut is being exploited by the media and politicians to destroy their rights and to ultimately empower an already dangerously powerful federal government and Cook County political juggernaut. Illinoisans and those outside the state are standing together and paying attention to how you vote on all anti-gun bills and amendments such as the "assault weapon" amendment to SB 2899. Should any of these bills make it to the governor's desk and pass, there will be political ramifications, and gun owners from out of state will make it a point to avoid spending money in Illinois or conducting transactions with Illinois businesses.

Do not believe that the arguments of "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense laws" hold any water. These are feeble and transparent attempts to reassure owners of certain types of guns that what they own will be left alone by power-drunk officials who ultimately want them all banned and confiscated. All of the leading proponents of gun control in the United States, Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, McCarthy, Mayor Bloomberg, Sarah Brady, et. al. have all publicly stated this desire. We do not believe that the case is any different at the state level. We know that what is being discussed now is an incrementalist approach to total disarmament of all American citizens, just as in the UK and Australia. In those countries, politicians sought to ban handguns and semiautomatic long arms while hoping to curb opposition by assuring hunters and target shooters that they could keep their big game rifles or trap shooting shotguns. The ruse worked, and today, all firearms are banned in those countries except for only a very few people who have the time, money, and persistence to go through an extremely complex and restrictive process to acquire any kind of firearm. It is a process which is deliberately designed in such a way as to discourage anyone who wishes to legally have a gun. Again, criminals in those countries do not obey the law, and they have experienced rising violent crime rates despite the gun bans. American gun owners have not deluded themselves into believing they are any less vulnerable than their counterparts in Australia, the UK, and other countries that have been so disarmed, but the same rhetoric will not work so easily on us. Today, the discussion focuses on scary looking semi-automatic guns that resemble those used in military applications. Tomorrow it will be all types of handguns, bolt action big game rifles (which will undoubtedly be demonized as "sniper rifles"), and then it will be everything else.

As gun owners, regardless of what types of firearms we own and what we use them for, we are all united to ensure that we will continue to own and use those firearms lawfully and that the Second Amendment will be respected. My most sincere suggestion to you, the governor, and all others in the state legislature is that if you do have a genuine desire to prevent Newtown-like tragedies rather than simply disarm the law-abiding, then you should direct your efforts toward the availability of mental health services. Additionally, reduction of the crime problem in Chicago and elsewhere should focus on unemployment and better education. It is ridiculous to believe that you can stop or reduce crime by turning the law-abiding into criminals, or to punish thousands of Illinois gun owners for the actions of a few deranged individuals. We demand that you oppose any and all anti-gun proposals in the state legislature.

As has been stated before, Illinois gun owners are not going to tolerate the violation of their gun rights, and are being joined in the fight by gun owners in other states. We will donate money to pro-gun organizations such as the ISRA to help ensure that anyone who votes against gun rights is unseated in the upcoming election.



Sincerely,
-------------

BCCL
January 6, 2013, 09:05 AM
Way to long, it will never get read by most of them IMO.

Trent
January 6, 2013, 11:17 AM
Agreed. You're not writing a press release or opinion piece for the local newspaper.

Your objective is to convey a position, as a constituent.

Try;

"As a constituent in your district, I respectfully request you vote NO on all legislation which would further restrict firearms, firearms accessories, or firearms ownership in our State. I ask for your specific support by voting NO on the following bills: XX,XX,XX.

Respectfully yours,

xxxx
"

Lone Ranger
January 6, 2013, 12:17 PM
Try this. "I am a firearm owner. I am asking you to vote "No" on SB-2899." Then close with "Thank You" and your name. If you feel the need to explain your reasons use bullet points and leave any political criticism out.

If these reps get their emails on their phone, they are not wanting to be scrolling reading small print. Short, simple and to the point works well.

4thestars
January 6, 2013, 01:37 PM
ILLINOIS folks, there is an URGENT update to the sneaky stuff in Springfield today...

*UPDATE* from posting on Illinoiscarry.com (http://Illinoiscarry.com) about an hour ago: (It was all caps in the posting, sorry...)

"WE HAVE RAISED SUCH A RUCKUS WITH 2899 THAT THEY ARE WRITING AMENDMENT #2 BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEETING

WATCH FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH COMMITTEE BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 1 "

Lone Ranger
January 6, 2013, 01:41 PM
Doesn't matter how they dress the pig, it will be the same pig under it all.

Trent
January 6, 2013, 07:21 PM
All anti-gun legislature in IL has been defeated at this time.

Rest for now.

They'll try again this Spring.

Captain*kirk
January 7, 2013, 12:30 AM
No, not a time for rest. This is a time to prepare for the next assault.
A HUGE Thank You to THR for getting the word out. If not for this thread I would have no idea of what they just tried to pull off.

68wj
January 7, 2013, 06:49 AM
No rest, shift focus to help NY too.

JFtheGR8
January 7, 2013, 09:19 AM
I think The Land of Obama was just a litmus test for Biden's committee to test the water to see what they could get passed. Keep calling and writing to both state and federal Congress members. They aren't "critters" either. Referring to them as such makes us appear backwards if you know what I mean. You won't be taken seriously that way.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

stonecutter2
January 7, 2013, 09:25 AM
I think The Land of Obama was just a litmus test for Biden's committee to test the water to see what they could get passed. Keep calling and writing to both state and federal Congress members. They aren't "critters" either. Referring to them as such makes us appear backwards if you know what I mean. You won't be taken seriously that way.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Illinois' anti-gun agenda has been legendary for some time. It's just a time to attempt some shenanigans, and they did, and our calls and lobbying efforts prevented the nonsense.

I doubt this has anything to do with Biden, or any kind of litmus test. If Biden is relying on Illinois as a litmus test, he's already failed. He's not that dumb...unfortunately.

Trent
January 7, 2013, 10:27 AM
No, it's a pretty safe bet this had nothing to do with Biden, this was just Tyrant Madigan and Terrorist Quinn flexing their muscles with the rest of the Chicago stooges.

JFtheGR8
January 7, 2013, 11:01 AM
They threw the the most outrageous thing out there to gage public opinion. That seems like a litmus test to me. Yeah, probably nothing to do with Biden's group but I bet they were paying close attention.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Lone Ranger
January 7, 2013, 12:24 PM
I called Sen Mulroe (D) and Rep McAuliffe (R) today to again ask them to vote no on any gun control legislation coming before the assembly this year.

Trent
January 7, 2013, 04:36 PM
They threw the the most outrageous thing out there to gage public opinion. That seems like a litmus test to me. Yeah, probably nothing to do with Biden's group but I bet they were paying close attention.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Undoubtedly, they were.

At least we had a heck of a trial run on "how to deal with this crap" - more people than ever are mobilized to call their reps.

Rumor has it, Acevedo even changed his government e-mail address.. he got so many e-mails from angry gun owners.. (or their mail server temporarily suspended his account to avoid getting overloaded lol)

BCCL
January 7, 2013, 09:17 PM
My email reply for Senator Dick Durbin. (Note, my email to him never mentioned "Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 3414)")


Thank you for contacting me about an amendment to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 3414) to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

On July 25, 2012, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced this amendment. A large capacity ammunition feeding device is defined as any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has the capacity to include 10 rounds of ammunition, excluding .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. The amendment also would require any capacity feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment to be identified by a serial number indicating when it was manufactured.

Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible manner. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of an effort to reduce gun violence. Throughout my time in Congress, I have supported a variety of strong crime control initiatives and efforts to combat the illegal possession and use of firearms.

Although, we may disagree on this issue, I appreciate having your views and hope that you will not hesitate to contact me in the future on matters of importance to you.

Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Trent
January 8, 2013, 12:23 AM
What a frigging non-answer.. wow.

Clinton
January 8, 2013, 07:50 AM
For the people by the people? Doesnt sound like he is listening to the people.

Clinton

BCCL
January 8, 2013, 02:28 PM
Yeah, the way he rambles and never says anything I'd think he was a politician! :)

ThePunisher'sArmory
January 8, 2013, 02:53 PM
As far as I've heard none of this has passed. I think they will have to come right out and write a new bill to get any passage into law. Their sneaky amendments to bills that have nothing to do with guns are not working. This however, still shows the rest of the nation how crooked and corrupt Il gubment truely is! The country must love it though.....their two term president learned all he knows here......

Jeff White
January 8, 2013, 04:57 PM
Thank you for contacting me about an amendment to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 3414) to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

On July 25, 2012, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced this amendment. A large capacity ammunition feeding device is defined as any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has the capacity to include 10 rounds of ammunition, excluding .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. The amendment also would require any capacity feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment to be identified by a serial number indicating when it was manufactured.

Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible manner. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of an effort to reduce gun violence. Throughout my time in Congress, I have supported a variety of strong crime control initiatives and efforts to combat the illegal possession and use of firearms.

Although, we may disagree on this issue, I appreciate having your views and hope that you will not hesitate to contact me in the future on matters of importance to you.

Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

You can't expect anything more from Durbin. He looked me in the eye and lied to my face on December 23, 1993 during the run up to the last ban.

Durbin was my congressman at the time and I had gotten a petition signed by nearly all of the working cops in Marion County. I specifically wanted only those officers who worked the street to sign it because it said; "We are the people who strap on body armor every day and go out to enforce the law and there is no need to regulate semi-automatic weapons, they are not a problem and we don't fear them." I specifically wanted to counteract the feelings of all the big city chiefs who were bureaucrats and never made a felony arrest in their life on the news calling for the ban.

I made an appointment and met with Durbin in his Centralia office to present him with the petition. He gave me a couple of the Brady organization's platitudes like there "are more licensed gun dealers in the US then gun dealers."

I got him back on topic and we went over the petition. He told me that no one had every presented him with the views of rank and file officers on this issue before. He had his secretary, who is now our county assessor, keep every one of us who signed that petition informed. We kept the pressure up through the whole debate and his Washington office would not commit him to one side or the other until he voted...for the ban. Then he had the nerve to send all of us a letter saying that he had to defer to the police professionals, the very bureaucrats who never made an arrest in their lives. When I called him on it, he told me I must have misunderstood what he said that day in his office about listening to those of us who actually worked the street.

I immediately got involved in the election. I went to every gun shop in the area and got the names and addresses of people who had bought guns in the last 2 years and sent them a personal letter detailing Durbin's real record on gun rights. Unfortunately, we were unable to beat him in a fairly close election.

If there is any politician that I would do anything to beat, it's Durbin. The man has not got an original thought, he can only spout a party line.

Trent
January 9, 2013, 09:50 AM
Thanks for sharing that story Jeff, I didn't realize Durbin was such a jerk. Duly noted.

Clinton
January 13, 2013, 08:05 PM
Welp finally http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=154&GAID=12&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=69138&SessionID=85&GA=98

See what developes.
Im looking for a link for proponent of the bill via witness slip. Also anyone from any state can fill out witness slips not just for residents of Illinois.

Clinton

Davey Wavey
January 13, 2013, 08:23 PM
That bill is just the first of many. Don't nit pick it as things are guaranteed to change over time.

OpelBlitz
January 13, 2013, 08:27 PM
Not to mention this needs a new thread.

Trent
January 14, 2013, 10:34 AM
Yup CCW is a separate topic altogether.

Clinton
January 14, 2013, 10:58 AM
I posted in a new thread

Clinton

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois members-Call your state reps NOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!