Illinois anti-gun bill: HFA #3 to SB1034

[C0untZer0]

A house amendment to an Illinois Senate anti-drug bill has created a new anti-gun bill.

Among other things, if the amended bill is passed it very well could result in a 60 day waiting period for any guns or ammunition. More on the amended bill can be found here:

http://isra.org/alerts/alert_05212012_soto.html

Because this is a house amended bill, please contact both your Illinois senator, and your representative and ask them to oppose HFA #3 to SB1034


If you don't know who they are, you can find out here:

http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

The bill will be in committee Tuesday 5/22/2012

 

[Spats McGee]

For those interested in reading the bill and its amendments, they can be found at the following locations:

Full Text (without amendments)

House Amendment 1 (fairly uninteresting scrivener's amendment)

House Amendment 2 (This is the one the contains the amendments to which C0untZer0 refers.

Good luck, Illinois!

 

[C0untZer0]

House Amendment 3 is not so great either

House Amendment 3

A lot of fuzzy-wording in the amendments, and it opens the door for abuse that could (and probably would)be used against law abiding gun owners.

It was originally a bill concerning cathinone - an amphetamine. The sneaky FOID voiding provisions have no place in the bill at all.

 

[C0untZer0]

Here is an explanation of some of the dangers of the amendments:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=8259

 

[wildbilll]

A 60 day waiting period? I hope they pass it. We need a good case that will go to court and force the court to appy strict scrutiny to all gun laws. Since there is no rational basis for any waiting periods, this will put a stop to this nonsense.
The IL legislature is in no mood to make gun owners any madder in an election year.
Actually the 60 day part says that once a new resident gets a IL Driver License, they have the right to possess for 60 days while they are appying for the FOID card. No guns owned means you don't need to apply.
The part about having to supply a DL to get a FOID is probably trying to codify the fact that the ISP will refuse to issue a FOID to a non-resident, even though the law does not say non-residents can't have one as it is presenty written.

 

[C0untZer0]

It looks like our NRA lobbyist turned this back.

We've been pushing for CCW this session and this SB1034 thing took a lot of time and effort to get fixed.

It's a constant battle. It's like Mike Tyson said:

Everybody's got plans... until they get hit.
Mike Tyson

 

[JTHunter]

The bill states:

New language in the bill states:
“(d) New residents, who are not otherwise prohibited from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser, shall have 60 calendar days from when they obtain an Illinois driver’s license or State identification card to make application and obtain a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.”

That sounds like they want people to apply for the FOID within the 60 days.

It also says something about "not receiving a firearm from a family member" during that 60 days. Doesn't say anything about possessing your own guns.

 

[Tempjunkmagnet]

Illinois State Police & bill sponsor met with the NRA lobbyist and the language of the bill was changed in House Amendment 4.

The NRA and ISRA are fine with the modified bill.

 

[elrowe]

Illinois State Police & bill sponsor met with the NRA lobbyist and the language of the bill was changed in House Amendment 4.

The NRA and ISRA are fine with the modified bill.

Why is the NRA fine with the FOID requirement? That's a major infringement. The only amendment the NRA should support (IMHO) is one to eliminate the requirement.

Full text with amendment 4: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...d=SB&LegID=55862&DocNum=1034&GAID=11&Session=

 

[C0untZer0]

No gun owner in Illinois is fine with the FOID card system.

Amendment #4 to 1034 eliminated the vague wording that made it susceptible to open-ended interpretation. It basically nailed down the verbiage so the amendment would do, and could only do what the ISP and it's sponsor said it was intended to do.

I think the original sponsor withdrew their sponsorship after it ceased to be a drug bill.

It was originally a bill concerning cathinone - an amphetamine. The bad amendment was attached with basically only 2 weeks left in the legislative session.

There are bills in the works to eliminate the FOID system, but this particular bill was not the place to create a battle over FOID - not with only 2 weeks in the legislative session. You have to pick your battles.

BTW - the Illinois State Police have for the most part become our ally in the RTC.

By working these out with this bill we retain an ally for the next time we push for CCW in Illinois.

BTW we were beaten by the Chicago-controlled anti-gunners - (Mike Madigan and the other Chicago machine politicians) in our attempt to get a vote on CCW this year in Illinois. So now the next major development will be the 7th Circuit hearing the consolidated cases of Moore v madign and Shepard v Madigan. Madigan as in Lisa Madigan daughter of Michael Madigan - speaker of the house and probably most powerful politician in Illinois now.

If the Illinois UUW law is ruled unconstitutional - these people like Mike Madigan and his cadre of followers are going to be scrambling to put together some kind of gun bill but they won't be able to.

It's one thing to prevent a bill from coming before the house floor for a vote or twist a few arms votes to prevent a super-majority, but it's altogether a different thing to try to put together a bill that will get a vote.

In the same way that all of their anti-gun bills were defeated, any kind of bill they try to scrabble together to react to a rulling from the 7th overturning Illinois UUW - would likewise be defeated.

I'm really hoping for a good ruling from the 7th