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

[iamkris]

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

May 17, 2007

State Representative Ed Sullivan
200-5A N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-3696
(217) 782-1275 FAX

Representative Sullivan:

I called your office today to voice my opposition to SB1007 that you are a chief co-sponsor on for the House. My thanks to your staff, especially Kim, for passing the word to you and for calling me back. I hope you will reconsider your position on sponsorship and/or support of 1007. Here’s what I’d like you to consider:

What is the purpose of this bill? If it is for crime reduction…

• Please name for me a “magazine ban” law that has reduced crime. California, Maryland and New Jersey have mag bans…is their crime rate low? NO
• Please prove to me that passing a law will keep these illegal items out of the wrong hands. Has it worked for marijuana? Cocaine? How about manufacturing meth? How is effectively banning handguns in Chicago working for keeping gangs from having guns? NOT WELL

If it is to “prevent” mass public shootings…

• Tell me how they occur in California where there is a mag ban?
• Tell me that people that are deranged enough to do such a thing will obey your law?
• Tell me that a 30, 20, 10, 5 round limit will prevent many killings when these lunatics plan for months to carry out heinous acts
• You are handicapping the average citizen to defend themselves

Who will it hurt?

• Illinois jobs – Les Baer has already stated they will leave. Rock River Arms, Armalite and DSA are right behind them. 100’s of jobs gone.
• Law abiding shooters – I can’t compete in IDPA, IPSC, High Power Rifle anymore because I am not an “Olympic” shooter or not at “Sparta World Complex”
• Me – You are punishing me because I will follow the law. Criminals and crazies won’t.
• You – This will be the straw that broke the camel’s back. You can count on people actively working against your campaign over this.

This is only “feel good” legislation that doesn’t address the root of the issue. You’ve always been thoughtful in the past…I hope you will do some research and be thoughtful on this one as well.

Kristopher Rich

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