IL Senate results - Important

[SmershAgent]

I just got off the phone with Tim Duckworth, who is an extremely helpful staff member for the Senate Democrats. He did some quick checking for us, and this is the situation:

SB0057 - establishes a system with the ISP requiring background checks at gun shows but eliminates waiting periods for guns purchased there PASSED
SB0056 - Same as above PASSED
SB0219 - criminal sanctions for failure to report loss/theft PASSED
SB0317 - One handgun a month purchase limit (i.e. registration) FAILED
SB0332 - Dealer licensing PASSED, but apparently it was gutted and is now a shell bill
SB0546 - closes the gun show "loophole" PASSED
SB1440 - Dealer liability for the behavior of criminals PASSED
SB1441 - broadly written bill that holds dealers responsible for creating a "public nuisance" PASSED
SB1482 - .50 ban HELD
SB1500 - CCW HELD
SB2101 - CCW HELD
SB2102 - Another preemption bill for long guns and ammo that exempts Chicago HELD
SB1962 - FOID required for stun guns and tasers PASSED
SB2104 - Preemption for firearms transport PASSED


As you can see, we got kicked pretty bad, and conveniently enough, Cullerton apparently just couldn't find the time to review the CCW bills. According to Mr. Duckworth, today was the last call, and any bills held behind are now dead. Obviously that means a setback for concealed carry, but a couple of bad bills are gone now too.

Our next strategy should be to make sure the CCW bills pass the House. I think there's actually a chance of doing this, as that chamber is larger and generally more friendly towards us. Once these bills clear there, they will be revived in the Senate...

This leads to another dilemma, however. More than likely, Mr. Duckworth believes it will be the same committee hearing them. Before that happens, it's up to us to tell Cullerton and Daley that we are tired of them screwing around, and that we expect these bills to have a fair hearing. If the bills are going to fail, let it be because of an open, fair vote, not because of some smoke-filled room trickery.

For now, it's time to start contacting all the Senators and asking them to vote against all these bad bills. It's very doubtful they'll pass over in the House, but I'd be much happier if we kill them all straight away.

 

[BB62]

UPDATE - 44Brent on Packing.org has this to say (links eliminated)

Two CCW bills scheduled for hearing on March 15 at 2:30 p.m. in the Judiciary were postponed. by the judiciary committee:

SB 1500
SB 2101

I contacted several senate staffers to find out what happened. According to a staffer for Senator Todd Sieben, committee chairman John Cullerton (Democrat), refused to allow the bill to be heard. I was also informed that tomorrow is the deadline for bills to be sent out of committee.

Interestingly enough, there was a barrage of media in the mainstream press in the last few days in which Richard Daley and Rod Blagojevich made public complaints to the press about the NRA pushing a right-to-carry.

Daley rips Gov's 'sideshow' on guns
Daley rips concealed-carry proposal
Daley gun bills sent reeling again

In addition, Peter Roskam, a right-to-carry advocate has been pulled off the Judiciary committee.

Contact the folllowing members of the Judiciary committee and let them know you don't appreciate the Judiciary committee pandering to Mayor Daley, and that you want the bills heard by the committee on the 17th, and sent to the floor for a full vote.

John Cullerton
(217) 782-7260
(773) 296-0993 Fax
[email protected]

Kirk Dillard
(630) 969-1007 Fax
[email protected]

Don Harmon
(217) 782-8176
(708) 848-2022 Fax
*****************

COME ON ILLINOIS. You must do more - NOW.


BB62

 

[Jeff White]

I don't understand the logic behind requiring a FOID to possess a taser. It's already illegal to carry one:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=59700&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 heading)
ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or
carries any bludgeon, black‑jack, slung‑shot, sand‑club, sand‑bag, metal knuckles, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or

(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same
unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or

(3) Carries on or about his person or in any
vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non‑lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

I read the full text of the bill and it doesn't do anything to the UUW statute. So I guess if I find someone with a stun gun or taser in his home and he/she doesn't have a FOID I can arrest them? It seems to me this law is a useless attempt to regulate something that's already regulated. It's already against the law to carry a stun gun or taser, what possible effect would having a FOID card have on this?

Jeff