User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2016 10:16:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Not really...
Right now, we are not having much luck at getting anything we want to move...Actually, with the gridlock, not much of anything is moving. There has been considerable hand wringing by the Northeastern Controllers about the issue....You know...they will only be used by gang bangers to kill cops etc... I still don't see a lot of hope in the near future....There just isn't much push from electorate to motivate legislators. But, we can always hope! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2016 5:54:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Every time the bill comes up for a vote Madigan sits on it. I believe that when this thing comes up for a vote pro-gun people put in witness slips, and the pro-gun witness slips outnumber the anti-gun Madigan pulls the bill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 2:04:45 PM EDT
[#3]
IL-GunLobby is saying that the House Judicial Criminal Law committee is planning on taking up the suppressor bill today. Has anyone heard anything on this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 2:27:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Whatever happened, happened yesterday.
It looks like it was assigned to the Firearms and Firearm Safety Subcommittee, but it's not currently scheduled for anything. It's not on the agenda for today's hearing, but I don't know if that page could be updated in real-time if something is added at the last minute. 5/16/2016HouseAssigned to Judiciary - Criminal Committee 5/16/2016HouseTo Firearms and Firearm Safety Subcommittee 5/16/2016HouseFinal Action Deadline Extended-9(b) May 27, 2016 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 2:53:02 PM EDT
[#5]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=433&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=84796&SessionID=88&GA=99
Link for those interested in following it |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 3:47:56 PM EDT
[#6]
From a Todd update
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61562#entry1003814 ..."There also seems to be some movement on suppressors. As the downstate guys went and had a bit of a fit in not getting any bills called. So we will see what happens, but there is a good chance it will come out of committee today as well."... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 7:20:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Looks like scheduled in committee on 5/24 and taking witness slips now.
http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/HearingDetail/13909?CommitteeHearings-page=1&CommitteeHearings-orderBy=&CommitteeHearings-filter=&_=1463523605731 Tracking: http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/WitnessSlipInfo/84796?hearingId=13909&LegislationDocumentId=108348&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1463523605731 Create http://my.ilga.gov/WitnessSlip/Create/84796?committeeHearingId=13909&LegislationId=84796&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1463523605731 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2016 11:58:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Just did my witness slips (me and my wife).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2016 10:26:29 AM EDT
[#9]
just created mine as well.
101 Pro- 01 Against |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2016 10:50:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Hit
105 Pro- 01 Against |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2016 6:18:00 PM EDT
[#11]
done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2016 1:51:37 AM EDT
[#12]
done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2016 1:22:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Filed.
Get the word out ladies and gentlemen! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2016 3:55:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2016 6:38:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Date and time of committee hearing has changed for those planning to listen live
Scheduled Date 5/25/2016 - 8:30 AM Location Room 122B - Capitol Building - - Springfield, IL Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2016 8:00:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Date and time of committee hearing has changed for those planning to listen live Scheduled Date 5/25/2016 - 8:30 AM Location Room 122B - Capitol Building - - Springfield, IL Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I would LOVE to be there. If only Chicago wasn't so far away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2016 10:07:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Hit, because I NEED a can or three...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 1:16:57 AM EDT
[#18]
I someday would like to bring mine home with me.....
Go hit the witness slips |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 9:45:09 AM EDT
[#19]
Info on witness slips please?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 11:19:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Info on witness slips please? http://my.ilga.gov/Hearing/WitnessSlipInfo/84796?hearingId=13909&LegislationDocumentId=108348&CommitteeHearings-page=1&_=1463523605731 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 11:33:13 AM EDT
[#21]
406-1 My wife and I just filled out slips.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 8:52:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Filled out my witness slip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:50:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Done +2 hopefully this happens fingers and toes crossed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 7:21:31 PM EDT
[#24]
DONE
500 to 1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 11:25:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Disappointing...HB433 only got about 4 minutes discussion today. Did not get out of committee and will be having further meetings. Potential it may reappear as SB206
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 11:32:50 AM EDT
[#26]
not surprising it didnt get much attention. very unfortunate as well. what should we say to our legislators to make them take it seriously next time it comes up?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 11:36:12 AM EDT
[#27]
Stolen from IllinoisCarry
House Amendment 1 has been filed pn SB206 Criminal Law Tech
Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Wildlife Code. Removes the prohibition on the use of a silencer or other device to muffle or mute the sound of the explosion or report resulting from the firing of any gun. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that a person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly possesses any device or attachment of any kind primarily designed, used, or intended for use in silencing the report of any handgun; or possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in silencing the report of any other firearm if the device or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms Act (rather than that a person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm). Effective immediately. It is scheduled for hearing 5/29/2016. Witness slips can be filed here And tracked here |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 2:27:37 PM EDT
[#28]
The way I read that is that a suppressor that is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for a handgun would still be illegal, regardless of NFA status. Is such a distinction possible? Are there suppressors that can only be used on handgun?
EDIT: Or is operator intent sufficient to establish that you would be in possession of a suppressor for a handgun? "You don't have any rifles with threaded barrels, therefore this suppressor is intended for your handgun." UUW snippet taken directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0206ham001&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84166&DocNum=206&GAID=13&Session= 20 (6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind 21 primarily designed, used, or intended for use in silencing 22 the report of any handgun; or possesses any device or 23 attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use 24 in silencing the report of any other firearm if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act firearm; or |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 3:08:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I read that is that a suppressor that is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for a handgun would still be illegal, regardless of NFA status. Is such a distinction possible? Are there suppressors that can only be used on handgun? EDIT: Or is operator intent sufficient to establish that you would be in possession of a suppressor for a handgun? "You don't have any rifles with threaded barrels, therefore this suppressor is intended for your handgun." Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I read that is that a suppressor that is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for a handgun would still be illegal, regardless of NFA status. Is such a distinction possible? Are there suppressors that can only be used on handgun? EDIT: Or is operator intent sufficient to establish that you would be in possession of a suppressor for a handgun? "You don't have any rifles with threaded barrels, therefore this suppressor is intended for your handgun." UUW snippet taken directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0206ham001&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84166&DocNum=206&GAID=13&Session= 20 (6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind 21 primarily designed, used, or intended for use in silencing 22 the report of any handgun; or possesses any device or 23 attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use 24 in silencing the report of any other firearm if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act firearm; or Does this perhaps mean those homemade suppressors which are non NFA tax stamped are illegal. ...if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act Im pretty sure this is not banning them for handguns. The suppressor guy in committee today said something about this, I just dont recall what it was. ETA: Guess handguns are still in question. Anything is a step forward, but hoping for the best in the final language for the bill! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 3:20:13 PM EDT
[#30]
SB206 appears to be related to Controlled substances. Is this the correct bill?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=206&GAID=13&GA=99&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=84166&SessionID=88 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 3:22:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does this perhaps mean those homemade suppressors which are non NFA tax stamped are illegal. ...if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act Im pretty sure this is not banning them for handguns. The suppressor guy in committee today said something about this, I just dont recall what it was. If this is being reintroduced as SB206, we may want to see how it and any floor amendments make changes from HB433 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The way I read that is that a suppressor that is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for a handgun would still be illegal, regardless of NFA status. Is such a distinction possible? Are there suppressors that can only be used on handgun? EDIT: Or is operator intent sufficient to establish that you would be in possession of a suppressor for a handgun? "You don't have any rifles with threaded barrels, therefore this suppressor is intended for your handgun." UUW snippet taken directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0206ham001&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84166&DocNum=206&GAID=13&Session= 20 (6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind 21 primarily designed, used, or intended for use in silencing 22 the report of any handgun; or possesses any device or 23 attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use 24 in silencing the report of any other firearm if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act firearm; or Does this perhaps mean those homemade suppressors which are non NFA tax stamped are illegal. ...if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act Im pretty sure this is not banning them for handguns. The suppressor guy in committee today said something about this, I just dont recall what it was. If this is being reintroduced as SB206, we may want to see how it and any floor amendments make changes from HB433 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile My I-am-not-a-lawyer mind sees the "or" (now highlighted in bold red). The NFA reference is in the second half of the or, but not the first half. It's a separation between "handgun" and "any other firearm". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 3:23:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SB206 appears to be related to Controlled substances. Is this the correct bill? http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=206&GAID=13&GA=99&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=84166&SessionID=88 Thats the Senate amendment from 2015. Look at the House amendment to the bill from 2016 click full text on page to see amendments http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0206ham001&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84166&DocNum=0206&GAID=13&Session= Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 3:25:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SB206 appears to be related to Controlled substances. Is this the correct bill? http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=206&GAID=13&GA=99&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=84166&SessionID=88 House Amendment 1 completely rewrites the bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 4:54:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The way I read that is that a suppressor that is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for a handgun would still be illegal, regardless of NFA status. Is such a distinction possible? Are there suppressors that can only be used on handgun? EDIT: Or is operator intent sufficient to establish that you would be in possession of a suppressor for a handgun? "You don't have any rifles with threaded barrels, therefore this suppressor is intended for your handgun." UUW snippet taken directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB0206ham001&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=84166&DocNum=206&GAID=13&Session= 20 (6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind 21 primarily designed, used, or intended for use in silencing 22 the report of any handgun; or possesses any device or 23 attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use 24 in silencing the report of any other firearm if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act firearm; or Does this perhaps mean those homemade suppressors which are non NFA tax stamped are illegal. ...if the device 25 or attachment does not comply with the National Firearms 26 Act Im pretty sure this is not banning them for handguns. The suppressor guy in committee today said something about this, I just dont recall what it was. If this is being reintroduced as SB206, we may want to see how it and any floor amendments make changes from HB433 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile My I-am-not-a-lawyer mind sees the "or" (now highlighted in bold red). The NFA reference is in the second half of the or, but not the first half. It's a separation between "handgun" and "any other firearm". Handgun suppressors would still be banned entirely under that bill; long gun suppressors are banned if not compliant with NFA. So handgun suppressors still banned, yet the original purpose of the legislation is for hunting, and the only viable deer hunting firearm choice for suppressing is handguns, as rifles are not legal and shotguns and muzzleloaders are not viable to suppress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 6:01:55 PM EDT
[#35]
This bill is in flux right now...language is being reworked to make more legal compliance and negotiations for suppressor uses...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2016 10:18:30 AM EDT
[#36]
5/26 update (suppresors at end of update)
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61691&hl= Ok where to start, so we have amendment 4 with all its issues. New ones you will hear about in committee. And they have been running in circles trying to get things fixed. right now we have bets going on the over under for amendments as to how many they will have. I think they could hit double digits. the biggest problem is the sponsor is working the floor especially the republican side women saying they have addressed all of the complaints from committee. Which they have NOT. Secondly, as they "fix" things they throw new stuff in there that creates new issues. So they have not fixed anything. Thy simply keep peeling back layers of the onion to try and see what they have to whittle away at and how much bread they have to put on this crap sandwich to get people to bite. As I sit here, it is unclear if they will call it this morning due to a meeting last night around dinner when certain things were pointed out to them. I wasn't there, but the reports are not good for them. So far we are holding our own, but the math is still the same, they need republican defectors to pass the bill and that is their play and hope. suppressors is in the mix and we are trying to see what else we can get at this stage. Keep the calls and emails going they are having an effect todd Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:31:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Everyone see the ISRA update on this tonight? Looks like it will be sb206
link to update and witness slips |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:02:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone see the ISRA update on this tonight? Looks like it will be sb206 link to update and witness slips Todd update: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61715&p=1007551 another amendment to follow, things are looking good. call your reps, call your senators we have a shot at this. and there are no trade offs being made. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 3:42:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Hit the witness slips again!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 10:26:04 AM EDT
[#40]
I have a question: Since the bill would allow the use of suppressors for hunting, does that preclude us from taking them to the range? Will they be restricted to rifle use only?
Since there are minimum barrel length and caliber requirements for handgun hunting will we only be able to own suppressors for handguns that meet the hunting requirements? Can't wait to leave this state..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 11:34:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a question: Since the bill would allow the use of suppressors for hunting, does that preclude us from taking them to the range? Will they be restricted to rifle use only? Since there are minimum barrel length and caliber requirements for handgun hunting will we only be able to own suppressors for handguns that meet the hunting requirements? Can't wait to leave this state..... Range use will be OK http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61715#entry1007613 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 10:24:32 PM EDT
[#42]
I think it is handguns only on the range for now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 11:22:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it is handguns only on the range for now. That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 12:45:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think it is handguns only on the range for now. That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 3:04:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better then nothing and can be amended later for general use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it is handguns only on the range for now. That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. We were told that about the CCL law, and the SBR law... What will end up happening is a crappy law such that the ATF decides to really restrict what suppressors if any can be approved in Illinois much as they have with SBRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 6:17:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We were told that about the CCL law, and the SBR law... What will end up happening is a crappy law such that the ATF decides to really restrict what suppressors if any can be approved in Illinois much as they have with SBRs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it is handguns only on the range for now. That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. We were told that about the CCL law, and the SBR law... What will end up happening is a crappy law such that the ATF decides to really restrict what suppressors if any can be approved in Illinois much as they have with SBRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 7:32:10 PM EDT
[#47]
And they just adjourned for today. Having watched a few hours of the stream today, I am amazed anything gets done at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 7:32:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Why would hunting use of suppressors restrict you from using it at the range? How is one supposed to zero a weapon for hunting if you cant use a suppressor on it?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 7:59:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Suppressor bill just passed committee 8-5 in our favor and has been reported to the House.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 9:56:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We were told that about the CCL law, and the SBR law... What will end up happening is a crappy law such that the ATF decides to really restrict what suppressors if any can be approved in Illinois much as they have with SBRs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it is handguns only on the range for now. That stinks. Still way better than nothing though. We were told that about the CCL law, and the SBR law... What will end up happening is a crappy law such that the ATF decides to really restrict what suppressors if any can be approved in Illinois much as they have with SBRs. The sbr isn't hard or bad to get. Need a c&r $30 which I think is 3 years. and can't do it on a trust.... Other than that easy. And ccw isn't that bad and I think has been updated alittle bit. We gotta start somewhere |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
