Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 10
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 21656
  • EE 90% (10)
USA USA
Posted: 8/10/2012 9:03:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2012 7:10:40 PM EST by Gamma762]
http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GAID=11&GA=97&DocNum=4901&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=84&LegID=64780&SpecSess=&Session=


8/10/2012 House Governor Approved
8/10/2012 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 97-0936


Cliff note: SBRs will be legal on Jan 1, 2013, so long as the possessor has a C&R FFL (and complies with applicable federal procedures for making/transferring an NFA firearm).

(7) A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if:
(A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

or (B) the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches.
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, FL, MI, SC, NH - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
-CY6-
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 1067
  • EE 100% (5)
USA IL, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 3:16:06 AM EST
So all you need is a c&r, and you can now own sbr's in IL?
Not possible. Can't be that easy.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 1201
  • EE 100% (1)
USA IL, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 3:55:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Stopper:
So all you need is a c&r, and you can now own sbr's in IL?
Not possible. Can't be that easy.


And be a member of a re-enacting group. I wonder how many "re-enacting groups" will be created in IL over the next few months.
George Washington didn't use his 1st Amendment right of free speech to talk the British into leaving....he shot them.

How to embed videos: http://goo.gl/F56eR
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2007
  • Posts 138
  • EE 100% (5)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 3:57:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 4:03:53 AM EST by FileForge]
I don't read it that way...the fix places the "OR" between the options now making it read "A" OR "B". sounds to me, all you need is a C&R.

I've got my Form1 ready to go...we'll see what happens.

DC

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 194
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 4:41:12 AM EST
FileForge is right. The "or" means everything here. This is good news

Macrophage
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2009
  • Posts 3047
  • EE 100% (66)
USA MO, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 4:55:26 AM EST
in the C&R/SBR bill adopted a few months ago, wasn't it a comma before the pivotal OR rather than a semicolon?
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2010
  • Posts 61
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:05:09 AM EST
So C&R and tax stamp (form 1 is it?)

What do you put for question 10c on the C&R app?


C. Are you in possession of a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States?
1. If you answered "NO," you likely cannot lawfully possess a firearm and therefore cannot be a federal firearms licensee.
2. If you answered "YES," complete the following information, and attach a copy of the hunting license or permit to the application.

-CY6-
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2002
  • Posts 1068
  • EE 100% (5)
USA IL, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:15:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By FileForge:
I don't read it that way...the fix places the "OR" between the options now making it read "A" OR "B". sounds to me, all you need is a C&R.

DC


That is the way I read it, and I cannot believe the current governor would remotely consider signing it.
If that is the case, I'll be filling out some paperwork ASAP.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 195
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:18:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 7:33:00 AM EST by SilverLamp]
Originally Posted By El_Pharmaceutico:
So C&R and tax stamp (form 1 is it?)

What do you put for question 10c on the C&R app?


C. Are you in possession of a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States?
1. If you answered "NO," you likely cannot lawfully possess a firearm and therefore cannot be a federal firearms licensee.
2. If you answered "YES," complete the following information, and attach a copy of the hunting license or permit to the application.


Answer "YES," write your FOID number down, and make a copy of your FOID card to include with the application.

Edited. Only non-immigrant aliens must complete 10(A)-10(C).

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 734
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:57:57 AM EST
As I read it this section:

"and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches."

only pertains to the re-enactors (part B) section. Right?

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 196
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:18:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
As I read it this section:

"and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches."

only pertains to the re-enactors (part B) section. Right?


Correct, because (A) and (B) are completely independent clauses. That is, they exist independently of each other and can be read isolated.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 735
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:45:41 AM EST
It does seem impossible that its this easy...but the reading is clear.

All one needs is a C&R license (plus federal requirements) to own an SBR in Illinois. Unbelievable.

Throbbing Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 3309
  • EE 100% (44)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:01:08 AM EST
I really hope this is the case!

Will the Feds issue a stamp for a SBR when the owner is not lawfully entitled to own one in their state? That may be the acid test.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 736
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:03:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By El_Pharmaceutico:
So C&R and tax stamp (form 1 is it?)

What do you put for question 10c on the C&R app?


C. Are you in possession of a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States?
1. If you answered "NO," you likely cannot lawfully possess a firearm and therefore cannot be a federal firearms licensee.
2. If you answered "YES," complete the following information, and attach a copy of the hunting license or permit to the application.


Wait, doesn't Section 10 only apply to nonimmigrant aliens? So, no need for us native born folks to complete Section 10, right?


Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2009
  • Posts 20
  • EE 100% (3)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:04:19 AM EST
So, does the sbr need to qualify as a curio & relic, or is any sbr now ok with a c&r license?

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 737
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:16:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By moosehead:
So, does the sbr need to qualify as a curio & relic, or is any sbr now ok with a c&r license?


My guess is that the bill's intent was for the sbr to qualify as a C&R, but the way its written does not make it a requirement that the firearms qualify as a C&R.




Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 197
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:31:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
Originally Posted By El_Pharmaceutico:
So C&R and tax stamp (form 1 is it?)

What do you put for question 10c on the C&R app?


C. Are you in possession of a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States?
1. If you answered "NO," you likely cannot lawfully possess a firearm and therefore cannot be a federal firearms licensee.
2. If you answered "YES," complete the following information, and attach a copy of the hunting license or permit to the application.


Wait, doesn't Section 10 only apply to nonimmigrant aliens? So, no need for us native born folks to complete Section 10, right?



I think you're completely right. I'm going back to edit my other response. We do have to fill out Form 5330.20 Certification of Compliance though.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 738
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:35:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By SilverLamp:
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
Originally Posted By El_Pharmaceutico:
So C&R and tax stamp (form 1 is it?)

What do you put for question 10c on the C&R app?


C. Are you in possession of a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States?
1. If you answered "NO," you likely cannot lawfully possess a firearm and therefore cannot be a federal firearms licensee.
2. If you answered "YES," complete the following information, and attach a copy of the hunting license or permit to the application.


Wait, doesn't Section 10 only apply to nonimmigrant aliens? So, no need for us native born folks to complete Section 10, right?



I think you're completely right. I'm going back to edit my other response. We do have to fill out Form 5330.20 Certification of Compliance though.


I agree.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 198
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:38:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
Originally Posted By moosehead:
So, does the sbr need to qualify as a curio & relic, or is any sbr now ok with a c&r license?


My guess is that the bill's intent was for the sbr to qualify as a C&R, but the way its written does not make it a requirement that the firearms qualify as a C&R.





That was my question too. I read it the same way bssrf4 did as well. The statute says nothing about the rifle actually having to be a C&R. It merely states that a person who possesses a C&R license may legally possess an SBR.

Coal miner.......nuff said
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2008
  • Posts 4733
  • EE 100% (58)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 9:18:23 AM EST
tag!!!
Tennessee Squire
Originally Posted By 53vortec:
"MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Possum)"
LJ "RAAARR!"
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Online
  • Joined Mar 2001
  • Posts 16007
  • EE 100% (225)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 10:12:13 AM EST
Ok so if this comes to be the case, what are the steps one needs to go through to obtain a C&R, and register a lower?

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 199
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 10:36:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By Marksman14:
Ok so if this comes to be the case, what are the steps one needs to go through to obtain a C&R, and register a lower?


For the C&R: Fill out Form 5310.16 (Application for License (FFL) Collector of Curios and Relics) and Form 5330.20 (Certification of Compliance). ATF C&R forms.

To get your $200 tax stamp so your SBR is legal: Fill out Form 5320.1 ("Form 1").

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 739
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:21:36 AM EST
It looks as if Question 13 on Form 1 will be the test.

Your CLEO sign his name below this statement:

"I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that Possession of the Firearm described in Item 4 on the Front of this Form would place the maker in Violation of State or Local Law."

At least you'll find out if you have an issue prior to sending in your $200. I guess we'll need to bring a copy of the statute and our newly issued C&R licenses with us and be prepared to explain the ins and outs of the new statute. Hopefully no lawsuits will be required to force CLEO compliance.





Student of the Assault Rifle
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2002
  • Posts 16087
  • EE 100% (163)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:31:49 AM EST


No

Freakin

Way



I am in shock...the wording sure reads as the intent is C&R + federal paperwork = SBR OK!
"I pledge allegiance to the ideal left us by men wiser than I, having the forethought to gift their children with the power of being free."
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2007
  • Posts 139
  • EE 100% (5)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:35:10 AM EST
I'll be talking with my CLEO hopefully on Monday. I'm small town downstate, but this will be a good starting point to open the discussion. I'll keep you all posted on how it goes. I CANNOT believe the blackout pistol is finally going to get SBR'd!

DC

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2009
  • Posts 4191
  • EE 100% (1)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:39:38 AM EST






Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 740
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:47:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By FileForge:
I'll be talking with my CLEO hopefully on Monday. I'm small town downstate, but this will be a good starting point to open the discussion. I'll keep you all posted on how it goes. I CANNOT believe the blackout pistol is finally going to get SBR'd!

DC


We should keep track of CLEOs responses to the SBR issue. A 'database' of responses would be interesting and, depending on the results, help stubborn CLEO see the light.

I would be happy to maintain the repository. Unless there are objections, please PM me with any results, providing the CLEOs name, jurisdiction and results and I will put something together.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 21659
  • EE 90% (10)
USA USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 12:30:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 12:32:00 PM EST by Gamma762]
I'm curious as to whether ATF would approve a registration from a trust, provided that the grantor and trustees have C&R licenses. The IL law discusses the need for a C&R for possession, not ownership. A trust can't get a C&R.

I know they are few and far between, but anyone have a DD or AOW in a trust in IL? It would be a similar situation since the trust could not have a FOID yet a FOID is required to possess the firearm.

Trust is going to be even more desirable once the supposed online system comes into use which would essentially eliminate wait times.
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, FL, MI, SC, NH - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 4141
  • EE 100% (44)
USA USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 12:41:25 PM EST
Interesting.

Gonna have to get my C&R app mailed.


Member
Avatar
Platinum
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2007
  • Posts 1021
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 3:54:45 PM EST
If your SBR was in a trust would you still need leo?

JAFC!
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 3188
  • EE 100% (205)
DEU DEU
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 4:24:25 PM EST
Here we go, Illinois law has to be broken down line by line to understand the intent:

As it reads:


Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting. Provides that the exemption applies to a person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


If you break it down:

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. States the law has been amended from the original ILCS 720 Statute to read:

Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting. Stipulates that these are to be used for re-enacting, the sole purpose is for re-enacting and not general possession of an SBR.

Provides that the exemption applies to a person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; This is unusual for Illinois law since it states "or" instead of "and", so by the letter of the law, if you meet one of these requirements you can possess an SBR for re-enactment purposes only.

the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible. Once again the termage of RE-ENACTOR is used to state that valid and current membership is needed with credentials to legally possess and SBR. This time they use the verbiage "and" to include the overall length and how it's to be transported.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 741
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:06:32 PM EST
i don't know that there is anyway around CLEO. Perhaps our brothers from other states could chime in on that issue?

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 742
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:13:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible. Once again the termage of RE-ENACTOR is used to state that valid and current membership is needed with credentials to legally possess and SBR. This time they use the verbiage "and" to include the overall length and how it's to be transported.


the AND in that provision refers only to be a re-enactor, it has no bearing on the C&R portion of the statute.





Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 200
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:24:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Here we go, Illinois law has to be broken down line by line to understand the intent:

As it reads:


Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting. Provides that the exemption applies to a person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


If you break it down:

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. States the law has been amended from the original ILCS 720 Statute to read:

Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting. Stipulates that these are to be used for re-enacting, the sole purpose is for re-enacting and not general possession of an SBR.

Provides that the exemption applies to a person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) the person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; This is unusual for Illinois law since it states "or" instead of "and", so by the letter of the law, if you meet one of these requirements you can possess an SBR for re-enactment purposes only.

the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible. Once again the termage of RE-ENACTOR is used to state that valid and current membership is needed with credentials to legally possess and SBR. This time they use the verbiage "and" to include the overall length and how it's to be transported.


Courts will look at legislative intent when interpreting a statute, but the first (and sometimes only) place the courts will look to is the statutory text itself. Here, the text is explicit: A person is exempt from the UUW and AUUW statutes if he (a) has a C&R license OR (b) is an active member of a bona fide re-enactment group and meets certain other qualifications. Courts presume that as lawmakers legislators are intelligent people and understand the semantic difference between "and" and "or." If legislators sought to exempt only re-enactment group members, they wouldn't even have brought a new bill, because the old language already exempts re-enactment group members from the UUW and AUUW statutes. If you were a prosecutor and made the arguments you're trying to advance here, the court would ask you two questions: 1) Why does the statute contain an "or" instead of an "and" if we are to accept your argument? 2) Why would the legislature even act if the new language purportedly maintains the same restrictions as the old language? I believe these are insurmountable questions for your position.

Old language:
An active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group possessing a vintage rifle or modern reproduction thereof with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length for the purpose of using the rifle during historical re-enactments if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches.






Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 201
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:29:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 5:46:00 PM EST by SilverLamp]
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
i don't know that there is anyway around CLEO. Perhaps our brothers from other states could chime in on that issue?


I have a "class 3" trust in Indiana. There is no CLEO signature requirement (nor a fingerprints requirement). I'm not up to speed on Illinois law yet in this area, but my first guess is that a "class 3" trust in IL would work the same way. The trust "owns" the SBR while you are usually the sole trustee and beneficiary.

Edit: There is no such thing as a class 3 trust. It's just what people call their revocable living trust that they use to own SBR/S's, silencers, and machine guns. Just wanted to clear that up in case people started googling "class 3 trust." Not a bad idea though. It will give you some idea of what you can do with a revocable living trust firearms-wise.

JAFC!
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 3189
  • EE 100% (205)
DEU DEU
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:44:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By SilverLamp:
Courts will look at legislative intent when interpreting a statute, but the first (and sometimes only) place the courts will look to is the statutory text itself. Here, the text is explicit: A person is exempt from the UUW and AUUW statutes if he (a) has a C&R license OR (b) is an active member of a bona fide re-enactment group and meets certain other qualifications. Courts presume that as lawmakers legislators are intelligent people and understand the semantic difference between "and" and "or." If legislators sought to exempt only re-enactment group members, they wouldn't even have brought a new bill, because the old language already exempts re-enactment group members from the UUW and AUUW statutes. If you were a prosecutor and made the arguments you're trying to advance here, the court would ask you two questions: 1) Why does the statute contain an "or" instead of an "and" if we are to accept your argument? 2) Why would the legislature even act if the new language purportedly maintains the same restrictions as the old language? I believe these are insurmountable questions for your position.


Look, I want SBR in Illinois as much as the next person, but everyone is failing to see what is written around the cusp of the "or" "A" and "B" language.

The second sentence plainly sets up what the law if for and reads:

Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting.


I fail to see where everyone can't comprehend that the statue is set up specifically for MILITARY RE-ENACTING. This is a segway law to be put on the books to get laws changed in the State. If they came out with a uniform SBR law, it would have never passed or been signed into law, that is a fact. Especially which our current sitting Governor who is waving the weapons laws around at the moment, simply this is a compermise. If you want to try out the new law, be my guest, but don't come crying back to ARF when bad things happen.

JAFC!
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 3190
  • EE 100% (205)
DEU DEU
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 5:52:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By bssrf4:
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. Retains provision that during transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible. Once again the termage of RE-ENACTOR is used to state that valid and current membership is needed with credentials to legally possess and SBR. This time they use the verbiage "and" to include the overall length and how it's to be transported.


the AND in that provision refers only to be a re-enactor, it has no bearing on the C&R portion of the statute.


So your interpritation of the law is if your not a active member of a established military re-enactment groups, yet have a C&R you can legally own an SBR? Let me know how that works out for you.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 202
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:08:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Originally Posted By SilverLamp:
Courts will look at legislative intent when interpreting a statute, but the first (and sometimes only) place the courts will look to is the statutory text itself. Here, the text is explicit: A person is exempt from the UUW and AUUW statutes if he (a) has a C&R license OR (b) is an active member of a bona fide re-enactment group and meets certain other qualifications. Courts presume that as lawmakers legislators are intelligent people and understand the semantic difference between "and" and "or." If legislators sought to exempt only re-enactment group members, they wouldn't even have brought a new bill, because the old language already exempts re-enactment group members from the UUW and AUUW statutes. If you were a prosecutor and made the arguments you're trying to advance here, the court would ask you two questions: 1) Why does the statute contain an "or" instead of an "and" if we are to accept your argument? 2) Why would the legislature even act if the new language purportedly maintains the same restrictions as the old language? I believe these are insurmountable questions for your position.


Look, I want SBR in Illinois as much as the next person, but everyone is failing to see what is written around the cusp of the "or" "A" and "B" language.

The second sentence plainly sets up what the law if for and reads:

Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute for military re-enacting.


I fail to see where everyone can't comprehend that the statue is set up specifically for MILITARY RE-ENACTING. This is a segway law to be put on the books to get laws changed in the State. If they came out with a uniform SBR law, it would have never passed or been signed into law, that is a fact. Especially which our current sitting Governor who is waving the weapons laws around at the moment, simply this is a compermise. If you want to try out the new law, be my guest, but don't come crying back to ARF when bad things happen.


I hear where you're coming from, but the plain fact is that the preamble language does not go into the statute and it is not law. I think this is what might be tripping you up. The language you are focusing on is not law. It is not even in the statute. It is almost completely irrelevant. Every law proposed in Illinois must have an explicit stated purpose. The "purpose" is not dispositive of the bill's intent or language; it is merely a required space to be filled in by a proposing legislator. It certainly does not have the limiting power on the bill's actual language that you are proposing it does. I think it was actually a pretty genius move on the part of the bill's proponent to couch the purpose language in broad terms of military reenactment as opposed to permitting general ownership of SBR's. The fruit of the political genius is explicit: One may now own an SBR in Illinois if he has a C&R license.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2006
  • Posts 5350
  • EE 100% (55)
USA USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:29:24 PM EST
So how can we get silencers passed? That's something I really want to see happen here (plus CCW) so I can apply them to my HD set-up.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2012
  • Posts 203
  • EE 100% (9)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:31:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By Nakanokalronin:
So how can we get silencers passed? That's something I really want to see happen here (plus CCW) so I can apply them to my HD set-up.


Throw it in the "military reenactment" exemption section?

With bozo the clown in the governor's chair yapping about AWB and vetoing CCW we're damn lucky we got this covert win.

JAFC!
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 3193
  • EE 100% (205)
DEU DEU
NRA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 6:48:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By SilverLamp:
I hear where you're coming from, but the plain fact is that the preamble language does not go into the statute and it is not law. I think this is what might be tripping you up. The language you are focusing on is not law. It is not even in the statute. It is almost completely irrelevant. Every law proposed in Illinois must have an explicit stated purpose. The "purpose" is not dispositive of the bill's intent or language; it is merely a required space to be filled in by a proposing legislator. It certainly does not have the limiting power on the bill's actual language that you are proposing it does. I think it was actually a pretty genius move on the part of the bill's proponent to couch the purpose language in broad terms of military reenactment as opposed to permitting general ownership of SBR's. The fruit of the political genius is explicit: One may now own an SBR in Illinois if he has a C&R license.


Evidentially my posts hold no water, since I took the link in the OP at face value and didn't click on the Public Act button which totally has something different than what his link provides. I humbly appologize for my possible misleading statements. If you follow through to the end the law should read:

FULL TEXT

720 ILCS 5/24-2(c)(7):
A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) he person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. During transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.




FAL
People's Republic of Kalifornia Escapee
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined May 2001
  • Posts 1977
  • EE 100% (59)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:09:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I'm curious as to whether ATF would approve a registration from a trust, provided that the grantor and trustees have C&R licenses. The IL law discusses the need for a C&R for possession, not ownership. A trust can't get a C&R.

I know they are few and far between, but anyone have a DD or AOW in a trust in IL? It would be a similar situation since the trust could not have a FOID yet a FOID is required to possess the firearm.

Trust is going to be even more desirable once the supposed online system comes into use which would essentially eliminate wait times.

Follow my logic here...I think you're spot on by the way.

A C&R is required in IL for an SBR.
The individual holds the C&R.
A trust cannot hold a C&R.
Therefore since a trust cannot hold a C&R, a trust would not be able to have a SBR in Illinois.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus

"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity." Tacitus
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 743
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:48:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By FAL:

Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I'm curious as to whether ATF would approve a registration from a trust, provided that the grantor and trustees have C&R licenses. The IL law discusses the need for a C&R for possession, not ownership. A trust can't get a C&R.

I know they are few and far between, but anyone have a DD or AOW in a trust in IL? It would be a similar situation since the trust could not have a FOID yet a FOID is required to possess the firearm.

Trust is going to be even more desirable once the supposed online system comes into use which would essentially eliminate wait times.

Follow my logic here...I think you're spot on by the way.

A C&R is required in IL for an SBR.
The individual holds the C&R.
A trust cannot hold a C&R.
Therefore since a trust cannot hold a C&R, a trust would not be able to have a SBR in Illinois.



Are you sure a trust can not hold a trust can not hold a C&R...there is an 'other' box on the C&R app? I honest;y don't know the answer.

Also, a corporation can hold a C&R and Form 1 weapon so how does that work in our tragic state? Again, I honestly don't know.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2004
  • Posts 744
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 7:53:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By FAL:

Snip


Just reviewed the whole FOID statute and it only mentions ownership in regards to out-of-staters. It says possession regarding everything else. Ownership v. possession may be a non-issue.


Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 21660
  • EE 90% (10)
USA USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 8:01:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 8:08:21 PM EST by Gamma762]
Originally Posted By FAL:

Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I'm curious as to whether ATF would approve a registration from a trust, provided that the grantor and trustees have C&R licenses. The IL law discusses the need for a C&R for possession, not ownership. A trust can't get a C&R.

I know they are few and far between, but anyone have a DD or AOW in a trust in IL? It would be a similar situation since the trust could not have a FOID yet a FOID is required to possess the firearm.

Trust is going to be even more desirable once the supposed online system comes into use which would essentially eliminate wait times.

Follow my logic here...I think you're spot on by the way.

A C&R is required in IL for an SBR.
The individual holds the C&R.
A trust cannot hold a C&R.
Therefore since a trust cannot hold a C&R, a trust would not be able to have a SBR in Illinois.

See if I can expound on my line of thinking.

IIRC a trust cannot "possess" anything; possession as a legal term is only something that a real person can do. It's a fleeting action.

In the general NFA world, a trust is used for ownership; a person or persons are designated by the trust as being eligible to possess the items owned by the trust.

The IL law specifies a C&R for possession, not ownership. A trust cannot hold a C&R license, but then again I don't think a trust can perform the act of possession in any event.

You can put regular firearms in a trust in IL, despite the fact that the trust does not have a FOID which is required for possession. You do have to have a FOID to possess a firearm regardless of whether it's owned by yourself, a trust, or another real person.
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, FL, MI, SC, NH - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2005
  • Posts 773
  • EE 100% (39)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 10:47:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Evidentially my posts hold no water, since I took the link in the OP at face value and didn't click on the Public Act button which totally has something different than what his link provides. I humbly appologize for my possible misleading statements. If you follow through to the end the law should read:

FULL TEXT

720 ILCS 5/24-2(c)(7):
A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) he person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. During transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


Don't be hard on yourself....I can scarcely believe they pulled this off myself. But then we really won't know until people start sending in the Form 1s and they are either approved or denied. As Lisa Madigan is notorious for re-writing the laws to suit her, it's probably going to take legal action to make this stick as you can bet Boss Madigan and his sock puppet aren't going to allow another revision of the law on this that doesn't close the C&R "loophole".


Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 21666
  • EE 90% (10)
USA USA
Link Posted: 8/11/2012 11:30:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2012 11:35:43 PM EST by Gamma762]
Originally Posted By Tiberius:
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Evidentially my posts hold no water, since I took the link in the OP at face value and didn't click on the Public Act button which totally has something different than what his link provides. I humbly appologize for my possible misleading statements. If you follow through to the end the law should read:
FULL TEXT
720 ILCS 5/24-2(c)(7):
A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) he person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. During transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


Don't be hard on yourself....I can scarcely believe they pulled this off myself. But then we really won't know until people start sending in the Form 1s and they are either approved or denied. As Lisa Madigan is notorious for re-writing the laws to suit her, it's probably going to take legal action to make this stick as you can bet Boss Madigan and his sock puppet aren't going to allow another revision of the law on this that doesn't close the C&R "loophole".

I think it's obvious from the legislative histories of the bill/law last year as well as this year, that person or persons very influential in the workings of the machine wanted this to happen. There's no other explanation for why a laundry list of anti-gun chicago dems voted for this, why the governor signed it, or that it was even brought to the floor in the house for a vote. If Boss Madigan didn't want this to happen, it would have never been called for a vote - but it was, last year for the original bill and this year to fix the wording.

The intent statement and the other stuff in there is pretty window dressing to deflect criticism from the media or others. SBRs are reasonably esoteric and no real media demonization campaign against them so it can slip through under the radar. The practical effect, the number of people who are effected by it are reasonably limited and the general public will never know.
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, FL, MI, SC, NH - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
JAFC!
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2004
  • Posts 3194
  • EE 100% (205)
DEU DEU
NRA
Link Posted: 8/12/2012 2:23:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By Tiberius:
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Evidentially my posts hold no water, since I took the link in the OP at face value and didn't click on the Public Act button which totally has something different than what his link provides. I humbly appologize for my possible misleading statements. If you follow through to the end the law should read:

FULL TEXT

720 ILCS 5/24-2(c)(7):
A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) he person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. During transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


Don't be hard on yourself....I can scarcely believe they pulled this off myself. But then we really won't know until people start sending in the Form 1s and they are either approved or denied. As Lisa Madigan is notorious for re-writing the laws to suit her, it's probably going to take legal action to make this stick as you can bet Boss Madigan and his sock puppet aren't going to allow another revision of the law on this that doesn't close the C&R "loophole".



I'm totally shocked that they got this passed. I've already called my old PD that I worked for and they are clueless about this, however they stated that the new chief will more than likely have no issues signing off on a Form 1. I've looked at the C&R application, I don't know what a hunting license has to do with it specifically where it states that if you don't have a hunting license it means that you more than likely can't own a firearm. But I guess that is government mentality at its best.


Me?
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 2875
  • EE 100% (3)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 8/12/2012 6:07:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/12/2012 6:08:06 AM EST by Jazzemt]
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Originally Posted By Tiberius:
Originally Posted By LessThanZero:
Evidentially my posts hold no water, since I took the link in the OP at face value and didn't click on the Public Act button which totally has something different than what his link provides. I humbly appologize for my possible misleading statements. If you follow through to the end the law should read:

FULL TEXT

720 ILCS 5/24-2(c)(7):
A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or (B) he person is an active member of a bona fide, nationally recognized military re-enacting group and the modification is required and necessary to accurately portray the weapon for historical re-enactment purposes; the re-enactor is in possession of a valid and current re-enacting group membership credential; and the overall length of the weapon as modified is not less than 26 inches. During transportation, any such weapon shall be broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.


Don't be hard on yourself....I can scarcely believe they pulled this off myself. But then we really won't know until people start sending in the Form 1s and they are either approved or denied. As Lisa Madigan is notorious for re-writing the laws to suit her, it's probably going to take legal action to make this stick as you can bet Boss Madigan and his sock puppet aren't going to allow another revision of the law on this that doesn't close the C&R "loophole".



I'm totally shocked that they got this passed. I've already called my old PD that I worked for and they are clueless about this, however they stated that the new chief will more than likely have no issues signing off on a Form 1. I've looked at the C&R application, I don't know what a hunting license has to do with it specifically where it states that if you don't have a hunting license it means that you more than likely can't own a firearm. But I guess that is government mentality at its best.



The hunting license part is not for citizens. It is for aliens.

On my c&r app I never filled out the part about the license and have renewed once with not filling it out and everything went fine.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." كاف
Inmate #36455
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2003
  • Posts 20461
  • EE 100% (10)
USA USA
NRA
Link Posted: 8/12/2012 7:38:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/13/2012 10:25:51 AM EST by D233]
It's a good thing I know my CLEO well


C&R app mailed today.
"The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed" - C. S. Lewis
NRA Life Member
AR15.COM Life Member
NRA Life Member
Avatar
Platinum
Offline
  • Joined May 2008
  • Posts 2728
  • EE 100% (67)
USA MO, USA
Link Posted: 8/12/2012 11:09:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/12/2012 11:10:31 AM EST by thefreshman991]
Just saying..

My stamps got back in the mail week before last... on a Revocable Living Trust.

I was hoping this bill would allow me to bring them to ILL to use as I have family there but looks like that isn't happening.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men." - Baron Acton
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 10
Top