I'm sure excited about it. We in IL have more gun rights now than we ever have before. I don't see how that's not something to be excited about!
Huge news in IL (CCW, removal of Chicago AWB)
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure excited about it. We in IL have more gun rights now than we ever have before. I don't see how that's not something to be excited about!
Where was the Chicago standard size magazine ban and AWB done away with? You reading a lot more into the bill than is actually there.
They can't limit handgun magazines now. That was clarified in committee hearings in the Senate, and also on the floor during testimony for establishing legislative intent.
Rifles and Shotguns were still subject to local ordinances, but no home rule city/county(cook) can do jack diddly squat about handguns.
EDIT: I see where confusion came in on what I said.
Chicago pushed for a state-wide AWB and magazine ban, even brought the parents of Sandy Hook to our state to testify in committee hearing.
When I said "stopped Chicago" that's what I was talking about.
The smack in the face was referring to the end of all home rule ordinances relating to handguns. Including magazines.
(This was to prevent someone downstate from travelling north and facing criminal charges over a "legal 2 minutes ago" standard capacity magazine.)
Rifles and Shotguns were still subject to local ordinances, but no home rule city/county(cook) can do jack diddly squat about handguns.
EDIT: I see where confusion came in on what I said.
Chicago pushed for a state-wide AWB and magazine ban, even brought the parents of Sandy Hook to our state to testify in committee hearing.
When I said "stopped Chicago" that's what I was talking about.
The smack in the face was referring to the end of all home rule ordinances relating to handguns. Including magazines.
(This was to prevent someone downstate from travelling north and facing criminal charges over a "legal 2 minutes ago" standard capacity magazine.)
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
Let's all give Trent a round of applause for all his diligent postings!
While the legislature passed something, the restrictions in this bill still make it absolutely unpalatable.
$150 app. fee (non-refundable of course)
fee for "digital fingerprints" (which the State Police are NOT able to process!)
the ridiculous timeline from start to permit/final denial (can be over 10-12 months!)
fees for the 16 hours of training (more than any other state!):banghead:
NO reciprocity with other states
NO state-wide pre-emption (except handguns)
WAY too many GFZs
And that's just for starters. Still, it IS a start.
Now, if we get lucky, Queball will veto it.
It's VERY unlikely that the Legislature could be called into "emergency session" before the June 9th deadline (the video said "July 9") to over-ride the veto (if they can), so Judge Posner's injunction would go into effect.
The problem with that is (again) all those home-rule cities. They could make their own restrictions and we would be subjected with a chaotic, haphazard, and totally confusing patchwork of laws.
While the legislature passed something, the restrictions in this bill still make it absolutely unpalatable.
$150 app. fee (non-refundable of course)
fee for "digital fingerprints" (which the State Police are NOT able to process!)
the ridiculous timeline from start to permit/final denial (can be over 10-12 months!)
fees for the 16 hours of training (more than any other state!)
:banghead:NO reciprocity with other states
NO state-wide pre-emption (except handguns)
WAY too many GFZs
And that's just for starters. Still, it IS a start.
Now, if we get lucky, Queball will veto it.
It's VERY unlikely that the Legislature could be called into "emergency session" before the June 9th deadline (the video said "July 9") to over-ride the veto (if they can), so Judge Posner's injunction would go into effect.
The problem with that is (again) all those home-rule cities. They could make their own restrictions and we would be subjected with a chaotic, haphazard, and totally confusing patchwork of laws.
JohnsXDM
Member
I believe this is following federal guide lines.
Now, if we get lucky, Queball will veto it.
It's VERY unlikely that the Legislature could be called into "emergency session" before the June 9th deadline (the video said "July 9") to over-ride the veto (if they can), so Judge Posner's injunction would go into effect.
I'd be cool with him signing it June 11th or 12th.
That way I could ride to work with a PS90 once or twice.
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
Sell your Sig Sauer and buy a Hi-Point. That way, you'll have the money to pay Illinois its license fee.
read it again. carefully. what it actually says. not what you think it means.
first off just because someone said that in a hearing does not make it so.
the courts will get to decide if regulating handguns includes regulation of handgun magazines.
the way the bill is written it is quite possible that it would be legal to carry a standard magazine but not legal to possess it. it will likely take someone going to jail to determine what it actually means.
we were played big time by the other side. it will be many people in jail and lots of money to lawyers to fix this abomination if it can ever be fixed.
From the bill;
Magazines are part of the firearm. They ship with it, and it is useless without one. A creative prosecutor could still nail you for violation of an ordinance that bans AFTERMARKET magazines, perhaps citing them as an unprotected firearm accessory... but standard factory magazines .. no way in hell.
However, an equally saavy defense attorney would correctly point out that a magazine is on the parts list for the firearm, and an aftermarket magazine is not an accessory, but rather, a replacement part of the firearm itself.
EDIT: i cut and snipped off of amendment 5, amendment 6 struck all instances of the word 'concealed', in the text above.
EDIT2: note that the preemption is two-fold and covers both licensing of the individual, and handguns as a whole.
I think that is quite possibly the end result after someone gets locked up over it.
In any case, I do not see the bill as dealing with the magazine ban quite as straightforward as some people have claimed it does.
The ammo side of it has issues as well. How are you going to prove the ammo you have is for a handgun? Chicago could argue the 22LR ammo you have is for the 10/22 in your closet and you might argue it is for your MKIII. Who is the winner of this kind of silliness? it is not the poor gunowner trying to abide by a deliberately confusing law.
While IL may be different - look at TX - we started with a less than optimal law. Some purists wanted to sabotage it but over the years it has gotten better. It's a lesson that is more useful than just complaining and waiting for the perfect.
joe_security
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 490
Sure there are numerous GFZ to contend with. However, those that have to trek through hostile areas (South/West sides of the city) will now be armed in the vehicle. Thats a great improvement for those that must commute through these questionable areas. A bus ride to County jail is the result for those caught carrying loaded weapons in the vehicle now. Many folks carry only OC spray in fear of the felony UUW charge.
DonP
Member
Lisa Madigan requests a 30 day extension
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-concealed-carry-law-20130603,0,6700777.story
By Monique Garcia Clout Street
7:14 p.m. CDT, June 3, 2013
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a request with a federal appeals court asking for an additional 30 days to put in place a law that would allow citizens to carry guns in public.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the state until June 9 to come up with concealed carry rules when it struck down Illinois’ longtime ban in December. Last week, lawmakers passed a measure setting out who could carry guns and where, but Madigan argues Gov. Pat Quinn should have more time to review the legislation before deciding whether to sign it into law.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-concealed-carry-law-20130603,0,6700777.story
By Monique Garcia Clout Street
7:14 p.m. CDT, June 3, 2013
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a request with a federal appeals court asking for an additional 30 days to put in place a law that would allow citizens to carry guns in public.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the state until June 9 to come up with concealed carry rules when it struck down Illinois’ longtime ban in December. Last week, lawmakers passed a measure setting out who could carry guns and where, but Madigan argues Gov. Pat Quinn should have more time to review the legislation before deciding whether to sign it into law.
I'm not at all surprised. She still has time to file an appeal with the USSC. This isn't over yet.
Ignition Override
Member
Trent:
You must have sacrificed/dedicated a huge amount of your spare time on this!
I hope that many of your fellow IL residents appreciate what you and many other Illinois Citizens have achieved. It must be very difficult to confront the Chicago Political Bullies.
Even though we are residents of west TN and I've never owned a handgun,
Thank You Very Much to all of you.
You must have sacrificed/dedicated a huge amount of your spare time on this!
I hope that many of your fellow IL residents appreciate what you and many other Illinois Citizens have achieved. It must be very difficult to confront the Chicago Political Bullies.
Even though we are residents of west TN and I've never owned a handgun,
Thank You Very Much to all of you.
The thing is that "our side" had almost nothing to do with this law passing and it would appear had little or no input into the wording thereof. This is all Mike Madigan.
The games are not over yet, and who knows what madigan's script calls for next.
Mr. Madigan is a profoundly good political 'chess player'.. he has this thought out 10 moves ahead. He's the cornerstone to Chicago's control over the state. Which is why my short hairs stood up on end the moment I heard he was supporting the new (and highly restrictive) shall issue bill with Rep. Phelps.
His daughter Lisa has not shown her whole hand yet, but this extension request on the injunction of the 7th is a start.
She's prepping this for a Supreme Court case. She needs the 7th to deny her extension, as they denied the en banc hearing, so she has better grounds to be heard when she sends the request to them. They delayed the passage of the bill until the last possible moment so that the signing of the bill now comes in to conflict with the 7th's date.
The court's deadline is June 9th, but Madigan can hold HB183 in the house for 30 days before sending it to the Gov.
Then the Gov can sit on it for 60 days before vetoing.
Then we all have to sit and wait until October, when the house and senate reconvene, before an override (or concurrence, if it's an amendatory veto), is passed.
That gives Lisa Madigan all summer to work on her Supreme Court appeal.
If she can get the injunction lifted or stayed another 30, 60, 90, or 180 days to resolve all of it...
Not over yet. And if anyone thinks there isn't a well crafted plan unfolding here... think again.
Dframe
Member
What Trent said!! Keep in mind that all of the chicagocrats in control of our general assembly, the governor, AND the attorney general, are strident anti-gun chicago folks.
Phatty
Member
47CubPilot
Member
Gotta love it!
From Phatty's link:
"Defendants continue to operate under the impression that the Second Amendment is a public harm, rather than a public good. Not so. The right to bear arms advances the interest in personal self-defense. Public safety is jeopardized each and every day that the right is denied to the people of Illinois."
From Phatty's link:
"Defendants continue to operate under the impression that the Second Amendment is a public harm, rather than a public good. Not so. The right to bear arms advances the interest in personal self-defense. Public safety is jeopardized each and every day that the right is denied to the people of Illinois."
Kingcreek
Member
I am not a lawyer and I do my best to comprehend these legal words so correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the plaintiffs just effectively pull the defendants pants down?
I think gura is not only brilliant but developing a great sense of humor.
I think gura is not only brilliant but developing a great sense of humor.
Phatty
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked