HB0131 - Gun Show Bill, private transfers will need background checks
HB0133 - Gun Show Bill, private transfers will need background checks
HB0348 - ISP report to local law enforcement
HB0525 - Smart Gun Technology
HB0575 - Reporting Gun Theft
HB0614 - One handgun per month
HB0794 - Gun Show Bill, another version
HB0990 - Firearms Dealers License includes Gun Registration retroactive 2 years
HB1060 - Assault Weapons Control, not the usual AWB, but still a ban
HB1098 - .50 ban/registration
HB1349 - Smart Gun Technology
HB2414 - Semi Auto, .50 Cal, and full cap mag ban
HB3849 - Firearms Accountability(SB1440)
SB0048 - Firearms Liability Act
SB0056 - Gun Show Bill
SB0057 - Gun Show Bill
SB0219 - Reporting Gun Theft
SB0317 - One Handgun Per Month (like HB0614)
SB0332 - Firearms Dealer's License includes Gun Registration retroactive 2 years (HB0990)
SB0546 - Gun Show Bill, another version (HB0794)
SB1330 through SB1333 - Firearms Act, left open
SB1440 - Firearms Accountability
SB1482 - .50 ban/registration like HB1098
Here are a few that are not anti-gun:
HB0136 - FOID Denial Appeal, with chance for recuping legal fees
HB0168 - FOID Card Private Transfer Records, from 10 yrs to 5 yrs
HB0182 - FOID Card w/o parents, from 21 to 18
HB0183 - FOID Denial Appeal, no recupement
HB0220 - Prohibited Firearms List - requires a list to be drawn up by ISP
HB0222 - Home Rule ammo possession, chips away at the Home Rule regulations
HB0223 - Private Sale waiting periods, abolishes it between private parties
HB0340 - Waiting Periods
HB0342 - Alderman possession in banned municipalities
HB0478 - Local Firearms Regulations, same as SB0043
HB0824 - Returning of Confiscated Firearms
HB0936 - Local Regulations, preempts home rule laws, except for handgun
HB2567 - Concealed Carry
HB2568 - Local Regulations, prevents restrictions(except for handguns and Chicago)
HB2586 - Sales to police( not one that I care about)
HB2607 - Concealed Carry
HB3489 - Transporting in prohibited areas
SB0043 - Local firearms regulations
SB0044 - Gun Free Zone Liability Act
SB1500 - Concealed Carry
SB2101 - Concealed Carry
SB2102 - Local Regs (HB2568)
SB2104 - Transporting in prohibited areas (HB3489)
SB2113 - Alderman possession (HB0342)
**HB0935/HB341 - Dial Up Records - I don't know if this would be a good thing or bad, but I'm inclined to think it's bad.
**SB0053 - Out of State Ammo Sales - at this point it's unclear whether it's good or bad. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, it's broke, but will this fix it?
Bills that have made it to the floor as of 3/17/05
House Bills - HB0136, 0182, 0183, 0220, 0340, 0341, 0348, 0478, 0794, 0824, 0935, 0936, 0990, 1098, 1349, 2414,2567, 2568, 2607,3849.
Senate Bills - SB0053 (which is now in the house), 0056, 0057, 0219,0332, 0546, 2104
I'm a general contractor, if we need them we get them but one has to ask....what liberal panty waste made this an issue? The only thing that pisses me off id that it gives the grossly clueless municipal inspectors of Illinois more power. Anyone who works in the trades, a business owner or foreman will tell you most building inspectors havent pounded a nail in 25 years if ever. If this is the best thing they can find to do with my tax money, i want a tax cut.
HR 47, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act",
the link will get you to a page to send a letter to your rep.
That's Federal, but thanks for the link. We could probably start a separate thread for the Fed Bills. It might get confusing if we have both going in the same spot. I do most of my internet surfing late at night when I'm half asleep, it won't take much to get me confused.
Today's additions are HB0220, HB0222, and HB0223. I'll add them to the original post to keep them in an easy to find place. I'm just adding the bills that I find. If you guys have bills to add, post them and I'll add them to the original post. Some are pretty low on the priority chart. After we have them laid out, we can focus on the 4 or 5 that will be the biggies. Any gains that we can make or losses that we can prevent will help out, no matter how small. Some of the little bills may be of particular importance to some of you and worth pursuing. Kind of like the portable shitter bill is to me.
I added a few more. My favorite is HB0342. It chips away at a law that has some bad parts. I wish it went further.
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Municipal Code. Provides that the provision that states that certain municipal officials are conservators of the peace after completion of a training course administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board does not apply to any alderman, councilman, or trustee of a municipality that restricts or prohibits the private ownership or possession of any firearms by residents of that municipality by ordinance or resolution. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that a violation of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon by any alderman, councilman, or trustee of a municipality not entitled to carry or possess a firearm in accordance with that provision of the Illinois Municipal Code is a Class 3 felony. Effective immediately.
They've also got HB 345 and 348. HB345 looks like it's going to be another shell bill by Acevedo springing to life at the last minute.
What do these entail?
Edited original post to add HB0348, and SB's0043, 0044, 0048, 0053, 0056, and 0057.
I didn't add HB0345 or any other shell bills. There will be hundreds of them. I noticed about 4 that Harmon has introduced. Acevedo is a big Daley anti-gunner and would be proud to have his name on a juicy gunbill. He was the sponsor of the House version of SB1195.
A shell bill is a bill that is intentionally left empty or makes a minor change to a law(change "thee" to "thou"). If things don't go their way, they yank out the introduced language and insert whatever nasty bill they choose. They did this last session . The previous session they sacrificed a real bill that was making progress in order to pass an anti-gun law. Both times they failed.
Take notice of SB0056 and SB0057 the so-called Gunshow Loophole Bills. This time it's sponsored by a progun Senator Peter Roskam. I've often thought that this bill would be the one to pass out of all of them. If anyone followed the history of it last year, they did a ton of work on it and had a butt load of sponsors. Now it's being sponsored by Roskam. It would appear that the Republicans are going to offer it up as a sacrificial gun law to appease daley and his crowd. Any bets on whether this will become law?
For those that don't really care about this bill, fight it anyway. If passed, they will be able to focus their efforts on other bills.
edit: I posted SB0053 as a good bill. It would seem to help us buy ammo online and through catalogs. It doesn't seem to impose any restrictions that weren't previously in place, only reaffirm them. Maybe places like Sportsman Guide won't be afraid to sell to us. What say yea?
That's sweet. Note that it was referred to the all Democrat Executive Committee. It's as dead as Dillinger.
HB220 strikes me as being a way to codify the way public nuisance laws can be used against gun sellers. It's basically saying that they can't use public nuisance laws against gun sellers unless the person has been convicted of the offense of unlawful sales of firearms, and they sold a gun off the list of "junk guns" the State Police have to make. Maybe the idea is to prevent public nuisance lawsuits against kitchen table dealers?
Also, FWIW, the state's site URL has changed:
Glad to see you back on the boards GreenDragon.
ETA: SB0053 looks like a loser to me. I emailed Larry Potterfield at Midway USA and asked about the reason for no ammo sales to Illinois. He stated that his system can't track FOID cards yet. Making it official just adds one more burden to buying out of state, IMO, and may actually make it worse, rather than better, to buy ammo and have it shipped.
We should be subject to other states' laws when we buy ammo there, just as if we bought it in person. If we buy or do something illegal, that's our problem, between us and Illinois, and the 3rd party should have no culpability, anymore than they do if you go to Missouri and buy fireworks to bring back to Illinois. This is just Illinois shoving its unenforceable legalities down someone else's throat. I vote to oppose this one. My $.02.
Added HB0478,HB0525, and HB575.
The gunshow bills are picking up Repub sponsorship.
I wasn't really sure about SB0053. When I talked to Sportsman's Guide awhile back, they indicated that they were afraid of getting sued by Chicago because of the gray area with Il ammo sales. I was wondering if this bill would give the companies something to fall back on in case of a lawsuit. If they showed that they were in compliance, they'd be o.k. That I know of, there is nothing official on the books about out of state ammo sales. It would simply turn a gray area into a b/w area.
It's not up to Midway to verify if the FOID is legit. It only requires that they get a photocopy of it. I would assume that the expiration date and name would have to be legible. An Illinois gunshop doesn't need to check on the authenticity of a FOID for ammo sales, they just need to see it.
If you personally buy ammo or fireworks out of state, I don't think there's a problem. If you tried to have fireworks shipped to Il, there'd probably be a problem.
As a general rule, I don't like any firearm's legislation, good or bad. I always feel that the bad can get worse, and the good can turn to bad with a couple of keystrokes. I don't know if the sponsor, William Peterson, is pro or anti, and I can't find enough info on him to guess. If it's a bad bill, I'll gladly throw it in the shit pile, but I'm not sure, yet.
Peterson's voting record is 9 pro-gun votes out of 12. I've profiled the house and senate as far as state firearm bills and have posted it on my website. I've also got 2005 ready for when that circus gets started. If you want to check it out, click on "House and Senate profile on firearm legislation" link. The profile is in M$ Excel and if you don't have excel, I have a excel viewer that you can download posted on that page. The address to the site is:
SB0053 is going into the "CCW for retired LEOs" for me. I'm not real fond of the idea, but if it happens, so be it. I'm not going to fight it very hard either.
Sounds like the gun show bills are going to be the fight this year.
HB220 hearing in Judiciary II on Feb 3--that's an all Democrat committee. Looks like we only have 3 pro-gun votes on that committee. Wonder why it went to Judiciary II?
Thanks for the link.
It looks like all of the scheduled committees are Democrats only, as of today anyway. Maybe the Repubs haven't added their members, yet. I have to assume that they'll update the members list. If not, it could be a long session.
SB0053 concerns me a bit, in that it basically requires you to send id to an out of state vendor or individual selling ammo. There, of course, are some, that, at least in the past, have not required a copy of the FOID card, and I would like to keep it that way.
I also don't know how they could enforce a law like that on the other end anyway.
If someone in Sen. Peterson's district has informed him of our potential problems lately dealing with out of state ammo purchases from some companies like Midway, maybe this is why he came up with this legislation, and putting the ability to purchase out of state in law, would be a good thing, I guess.
I guess it would be good to write him and find out his motives behind this bill. In the past when I have written him, he has been very supportive of gun owners. Can't find any letters, right now, but when the SB1195? was going through the various committees, I sent him a letter and he was supportive of my position on the bill.
As far as SB0056 and SB0057 go, if the word "must" were removed, the bill would be fairly good as far as I read. Personally, if I were to have a gun at a show and want to do a face to face transfer, I would like the option, as a person w/o a ffl, to call and check on someone's FOID and background, without the state giving me any details with regards to a denial. But to make people do this is unacceptable to me, so I hope the bill doesn't make it as currently written.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems only to deal with gun shows and not ftf transfers between neighbors, friends, etc.
With the passage of the federal LEO-cccw law, why is this even neccessary ???
It looks like the interesting bills could start popping up. HB0614 changes some language when dealing with transfers. It's a simple little deal, change "sell" or "give" to "transfer". Oh yeah, it also restricts people to one handgun a month. Funny how that just sort of slipped in there.
Wanna legally inherit the ole man's 12 handguns. It'll take a year unless you wanna jump through hoops and submit to an anal probe. I think this would really apply more to the guys that cruise the auctions.
Here's the jist of it. I didn't copy Subsection C.
29 Sec. 24-3.1A. Unlawful acquisition of handguns.
30 (a) Except as exempted in subsections (b) and (c), it is
31 unlawful for any person other than a person holding a license
32 under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to
33 acquire more than one handgun within any 30-day period.
34 (b) Acquisitions in excess of one handgun within a 30-day
35 period may be made upon completion of an enhanced background
HB0614 - 8 - LRB094 03417 RLC 33419 b
1 check, as described in this Section, by special application to
2 the Department of State Police listing the number and type of
3 handguns to be acquired and transferred for lawful business or
4 personal use, in a collector series, for collections, as a bulk
5 purchase from estate sales, and for similar purposes. The
6 application must be signed under oath by the applicant on forms
7 provided by the Department of State Police, must state the
8 purpose for the acquisition above the limit, and must require
9 satisfactory proof of residency and identity. The application
10 is in addition to the firearms transfer report required by the
11 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The Director of
12 State Police shall adopt rules, under the Illinois
13 Administrative Procedure Act, for the implementation of an
14 application process for acquisitions of handguns above the
16 Upon being satisfied that these requirements have been met,
17 the Department of State Police must forthwith issue to the
18 applicant a nontransferable certificate that is valid for 7
19 days from the date of issue. The certificate must be
20 surrendered to the transferor by the prospective transferee
21 before the consummation of the transfer and must be kept on
22 file at the transferor's place of business for inspection as
23 provided in Section 24-4. Upon request of any local law
24 enforcement agency, and under its rules, the Department of
25 State Police may certify the local law enforcement agency to
26 serve as its agent to receive applications and, upon
27 authorization by the Department of State Police, issue
28 certificates forthwith under this Section. Applications and
29 certificates issued under this Section must be maintained as
30 records by the Department of State Police, and made available
31 to local law enforcement agencies.
It's not. Last year, it was one Blago vetoed, IIRC. I'm just saying that, like that bill, I'm not going to fight too hard for or against it. Maybe I wasn't too clear about what I meant there--sorry about that.
I added HB's 0794, 0824, 0935, 0936, 990 and SB0219.
What are your thoughts on HB0935/SB0341? I don't see it as a positive bill, only because it seems to add more to the books.
HB0824 seems like it would be a positive bill, but the wording seems squirrely to me.
SB0053, 0055, 0056, and 0219 move on to Judiciary. A new member, Kwame Raoul, has taken Obama's spot.
The only one of particular interest is HB990, the Firearms Dealers License. It would allow the ISP to decide who gets a license, charges alot of money to get it, and creates a Gun Registration Program that is retroactive 2 years.
Section 30. Submission to Department. A licensed dealer
18 must, within 24 hours after making a sale or transfer of a
19 firearm to a person who is not licensed as a dealer, report
20 that sale to the Department of State Police. The report must
21 contain the following information: the date of the sale or
22 transfer; the identity and address of the dealer; the name,
23 address, age, and occupation of the transferee; the price of
24 the firearm; and the kind, description and number of the
25 firearm. All records of the reports must be maintained by the
26 Department on a computer database capable of allowing the
27 retrieval of information for each dealer and each transferee.
28 The computer database must also contain a listing of each
29 county or municipality that prohibits one or more types of
30 firearm, and the type or types of firearms that are prohibited
31 in that county or municipality. Information in the database
32 must be made available to any law enforcement agency
33 responsible for the enforcement of any federal, State or local
34 law or ordinance relating to firearms, and to any licensed
35 dealer who requests information relating to a person who is
HB0990 - 8 - LRB094 03423 RLC 33425 b
1 seeking to purchase one or more firearms from that dealer.
2 Except as specifically provided in this Section, information in
3 the database are confidential records of the Department and are
4 not subject to disclosure under any other law.
5 In addition to any other requirements of this Section, any
6 licensee who was required by Section 3 of the Firearm Owners
7 Identification Card Act to keep a record of a transfer of a
8 firearm occurring within the 24 month period immediately
9 preceding the effective date of this Act must, no later than 30
10 days after that effective date, report those transfers to the
11 Department of State Police. The report must contain the
12 information required to be maintained as records under
13 subsection (b) of Section 3 of the Firearm Owners
14 Identification Card Act. The Department must include the
15 records of those reports in the computer database required to
16 be maintained under this Section.
Senate Judiciary Hearing scheduled for 2/15/05. They are to hear SB0048, 0053, 0056, 0219.
HB1060 was introduced. This is an assault weapons ban that is worded differently from 1195.
Isn't Chicago pretty much ignoring the federal law anyway? They'd probably just ignore this one too.
At least I'm seeing some "Rs" appearing on these committees now.
GreenDragon: I'm not seeing SB341, dial up records, anywhere. Is that the corect number? Looks like the Senate isn't even to 300 yet.
ETA: I read the House bills Millner introduced (gun shows), and frankly, I think they're more good than bad. You have to call the ISP to validate FOID, but they are supposed to destroy the records (yeah right, I know). The fact that it eliminates the waiting period is a real step forward, IMO--that's a huge obstacle to gun sales at a gun show. If I had to have a gun show law, this isn't a bad way to go. Just my $.02--I'm sure some will disagree.
You're right, it should have been HB341, not SB341. Thanks for catching that.
I added HB1098, a .50 cal registration scheme, which is a ban as far as I'm concerned.
The anti's are getting smarter.
Both the AW and .50 bills are sponsored by women from the burbs, so we can't as easily paint this as more Chgo B.S.
Plus, both bills contain grandfathering and registration clauses, which should make the duck and deer crowd crare even less about fighting them.
Both bills contain a one year grace period. Isn't that special.......
I was noticing that. It looks like they're trying to get as much mileage out of the soccer moms as they can. It also appears that they're using the terrorist angle.
I added HB1349 which is the same as HB525, it's even sponsored by the same person. It deals with triggerlocks and smart gun technology.
Looks like House Judiciary, Judiciary II, and Ag committees are all scheduled to meet this week and hear a bunch of the House bills. I can't believe some of this went to the Ag committee--that should be a friendly audience.
GreenDragon, any word on the Senate committee meeting today?
I didn't make it to the Capitol, so I don't know if those bills were read at that hearing. The webpage doesn't give any clue.
I added SB0317- 1 handgun per month and SB0332 - Firearms Dealers License with gun registration to the list.
It looks like alot of the House bills have been assigned to the Human Services Committee. Alot of the Senate Bills were postponed in Judiciary. SB0053 is up for Second Reading.
They're all well aware of it--they just prefer to read into it that Miller allows them to decide what they can and can't regulate.
Since the crew of cowards in the SCOTUS refuse to hear every 2nd Amendment case that comes to them, they are unfortunately correct. Without a check and balance to their authority, legislatures are able to trample the 2nd Amendment with impunity. I sure would like to see Thomas or Scalia get the Chief Justice position, and a few of the libs retire.
Good luck with the Trib--they hate Daley right up until you get to gun control.
I added a Senate version (SB0546) of a House bill (HB0794) requiring a background check on the SELLER as well as the buyer.
I guess the big news is the addition of HB2414, which is a another semiauto ban that includes .50 cals and full cap mags.
Senate Hearing Feb 24 @11:30 for SB0056, 0057, 0219, 0317, and 0332
HB2567 and HB2607 are concealed carry bills. HB2568 is a bill to prevent local regulations(except for handguns and Chicago). HB2586 and SB's 1330-1333 also added.
HB990,1060, 1098, and 1349 are supposed to have a hearing on Feb 24 at 8AM
HB3489 which deals with transporting firearms and ammo in prohibited areas. It might be of interest to our Chicago area members.
SB1440 - Firearms Accountability - another b.s bill
SB1482 - Senate version of .50 cal ban
SB1500 - Senate version of concealed carry
Please keep us posted on how these things go tomorrow. Lots of stuff getting introduced that is vital, but of course, I guess I didn't need to tell you that.
Hearings? What hearings? Did somebody say hearings?
In a surprise move that stuns us all, nothing was heard today. If you look at the House Bills, you'd never even know that a hearing was scheduled. In the Senate, they postponed the bills from being heard. The new dates are March 1 and March 2 for the various bills.
Overall, it's good news, nothing was done to strip our rights. It's a bummer for the people that take time off of work to show up to these things.
In other developments, HB0477(Gunfree Zone Liability Act) was reassigned from the more friendly Ag and Consev Comm to the Executive Comm.
Only one bogus bill added HB3849. Good bills added are SB2101, 2102, 2104, & 2113. All are duplicates.
No news is good news. None of the anti SB's made it out of committee today. SB0056, 0057, 219, 546 Postponed, SB317 & 546 Held in Judiciary. They should be rescheduling the hearing soon.
This is a cut and paste of a response I did in another thread, not an original thought left in my head tonight.
Today, they snuck one past the goalie. HB0990 (Firearms Dealers License) made it out of committee. This is the bill that would set up gun registration that is retroactive 2 years. It also sets up the ISP to decide who can sell guns and who can't. This is the same bill that stalled in the Senate yesterday.
HB1060 (Assault Weapons), HB1098 (.50 cals and ammo), and HB1349 (Trigger locks and smart gun technology) were supposed to be heard in the same hearing. I don't think they were heard, but I haven't been able to verify that .
Almost all of the Senate Bills are scheduled to be heard on March 8, 2:30 PM in Rm 212 of the Capitol. All of the Senate's foul bills as well as the concealed carry bills will be there. Of course, there's no guarantee that they'll hear any of them.
As I mentioned in my last post, there's no guarantee that they'll hear them, and they didn't.
The Senate bills that were to be heard were postponed. These were SB0056, 0057, 0219, 317, 332, 546, 1440, 1482, 1500, 2101, 2102, 2104.
House bills 2567, 2568, and 2607 made it out of committee.
HB1060, HB1098, and HB1349 are due to be heard tomorrow.
HB1060 (AWB Bill) was postponed until probably tomorrow.
HB1098 (.50 cal ban) passed in committee in an amended form.
HB1349 (smart gun technology) passed in committee in an amended form.
These two bills are headed for the floor. Will HB1060 follow? Both Madigan and Jones have said that they were sending all gunbills to favorable committees for passage, good and bad.
Thanks for the heads up GreenDragon, it really is appreciated.
Hey it looks like you guy and gals in IL
are in the same boat as us in NY
and it's sinking fast
These legislators, mostly women, and mostly from NE IL, are stupid. I don't know who even comes up with the language on these bills. They don't even seem to know what they're talking about.
No, I thought only the smartest people got elected
Especially from the NE SHIT-HOL..........I mean, area of the state.
The hearing for HB2414 is set for 3/16. This is Acevedo's semi auto ban with the .50 and full cap mags tossed in for good measure.
The Senate Bills are rescheduled for 3/15.
HB1060 was sent back to Rules.
I edited the original post to show what has made it to the floor. I also pulled out the comments about the shitter bill to shorten the post. Now, Patriot's response makes no sense.
Hopefully going back to Rules will be the death Knell of HB1060- quite often when they go back to Rules they never come back.
Thanks for the updates Green Dragon. i'll be writing/calling my reps and getting nbotarized pics for proof that my EBR's were indeed EBRs prior to this nonsense, just in case.
[edited] crap, I didn't realize the votes were today. Well at least my rpresentative is very pro 2nd ammendment. He even calls to thank me every time I send him an email or call on a particular bill.
I added these bills to the list of bills going to the floor on the first post. HB2414 is the AWB, .50 cal ban, and full cap mag ban.
HB0794, 2414, 3849. SB0056, 0057, 0219, 0546, 2104.
SB0332 (Firearms Dealer's License w/registration) and SB0546 (Firearms Seller's Background Checks) have made it to the floor.