1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FIRE MISSION - call Ed Sullivan (R) who is co-sponsor of IL SB1007 mag ban

Discussion in 'Activism' started by iamkris, May 18, 2007.

  1. iamkris

    iamkris Senior Member

    Jan 6, 2003
    My own little slice of Purgatory
    Oops, realized I should have put this over here
    Sorry to cross post on this topic http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=277893

    The Illinois magazine ban SB1007 is being delayed until next week for its reading in House Committee.

    As I understand the bill, the salient points of the bill are:
    • Bans sale or possession of mags of more than 10 rounds
    • Grandfathers in current possession
    • Exempts .22 tubular mags, blackpowder or "guns made expressly for military reenactments" - not sure how they are going to determine that
    • Exempts police, jailers, military on the job
    • Exempts guns for use at Sparta Range, Olympic shooting during competition or transport to/from
    • Exempts if hunting where permitted

    My State Representative, Ed Sullivan (R), who has almost always been on the right side of these issues has signed on to this as the Chief Co-sponsor for the House bill. His phone answerer said that if I read the bill, it doesn't take away guns from anyone. I told her that 1) it is "feel good" legisslation that doesn't actually affect crime and 2) criminals will get the higher cap mags anyway. Why waste the time on the bill? It only harms the law abiders and makes criminals laugh.

    I called his office and wrote a letter...here is the text

    Well, I talked to Ed today for quite a while (~20 minutes). Here is his input

    • This bill will pass with or without his support
    • Northern Illinois Republicans are under attack...soccer moms want action and they see this as progress...they need to compromise to keep the more important legislation at bay (assault weapons, 50 cal ban)
    • He doesn't personally think anyone "needs" these magazines even though he personally has them and likes them (in his personal 9mm handgun and AR)
    • He is introducing amendments to put harsh punative elements in for the use of high caps in a crime
    • He is intro-ing legislation on harsh penalties for straw purchases to call out the positions of Chicago based legislators
    • He realizes that the law is ineffective at reducing crime but sees it as politically necessary to keep fighting the bigger issue
    • He is skeptical of a 1) slippery slope theory that this is just the beginniong of further bans and 2) that companies will leave the state

    I made every argument in my letter above. I agreed with him that compromise is needed but not on something so fundamentally ineffective I urged him to take the time to educate his constituency that these laws are ineffective and intro some legislation that actually addresses the points (up the penalty for using them, economic incentives to reduce crime, etc).

    So...that was frustrating. He acknowledges that my arguements are essentially correct but he has to do it for political purposes. He believes the fallout from gunowners will be less than the fallout from soccer moms if he doesn't support it.

    I need you to call his office and blanket him with letters to let him know how wrong he is. BE NICE

Share This Page