Attn Illinois citizens: New anti gun bills headed for the house. - Page 2

nate45 · January 25, 2012, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

You did mean to write "committees," right?

The Central Committee?

C0untZer0 · January 25, 2012, 08:59 AM

Davey, have you used Reverse Robo Call?

http://reverserobocall.com/

I was think of compiling 3 lists of Illinois poilitians - Pro, Con, and "my" representatives and creating at least two different messages and trying RRC.

**Spats McGee** · January 25, 2012, 10:34 AM

I wish the best of luck to Illinois residents on these.

I haven't gone through these with my fine-toothed comb, but two things jumped out at me:

First, there's a prohibition on semi-auto shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds. . . I guess it's a good thing that most police cruisers have pump-action shotguns in them, right?

Second, don't be carryin' when you've got your hoodie on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinois General Assembly, HB1599

A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: . . . . (9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or firearm or ballistic knife, when he is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his identity; or . . . .

Davey · January 25, 2012, 10:34 AM

I've heard of that Robo Call thing. The antis used something similar last year shortly before our carry bill came up for a final vote. It reeked of desperation. We're better than that.

Davey · January 25, 2012, 10:36 AM

Yeah I read that hooded/masked part and was bewildered that a representative would think that that is something we need in Illinois. As if carrying the gun wasn't already illegal.

I also noticed that the new bills call for a ban on semi autos that weigh more than 50 ounces unloaded. Is this an attempt to get rid of the Desert Eagle?

**Spats McGee** · January 25, 2012, 10:39 AM

Could be. From the Magnum Research website:

Mark XIX Desert Eagle Pistol Specifications
.50 A.E.
Weight w/empty magazine . . . . 1998.6 grams (71.4 oz.)

Davey · January 25, 2012, 10:40 AM

Figured as much.

I also thought it might be used to axe the Judge and Governor revolvers but I don't think revolvers are being considered semi automatic.

**44 AMP** · January 25, 2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

A few lines down on page 3; TECHNICALLY the Glock 17 is the semi automatic Glock 18.

Since we are being technical, doesn't the GLock 17 predate the GLock 18?
I don't know, but I thought it did. IF it does, then the GLock 18 would be the "full automatic version" of the GLock 17, and the 17 would NOT be the semi auto version of the 18! And the same would apply to the Beretta 93, if it predates the 93R full auto version, right?

Ok, its splitting hairs, but if the law is going to be "technical" then it also has to be "accurate"! Anybody know where to find out which came first?

I realize the AR's AKs and such came after the Select fire designs, so no help there. Didn't the Mini 14 appear before the AC556?

Regardless of the technical specs in the proposed laws, IL residents need to make your legislators know that these need to be slapped down, hard. And they need to know that they'll be looking for new work come next election if they don't. Good Luck with that everyone.

Patriot86 · January 25, 2012, 09:25 PM

@44 you are correct, as far as I know the 17 did come before the 18. Not sure about 92/93. H&K VP70 was first though

. I think this just highlights how asinine this law is. Trust me I already contacted my rep but sadly Carol Sente is a co-sponsor of this bill, I am just counting down the days until hopefully I can vote her out of office.

**Tom Servo** · January 26, 2012, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Since we are being technical, doesn't the GLock 17 predate the GLock 18?

Yep. The 17 was Gaston's first pistol, and Glock's 17th patent. Previous stuff included shovels and shower curtains IIRC. I'm not sure if subsequent models represent patents or order in which they were introduced.

Quote:

Ok, its splitting hairs, but if the law is going to be "technical" then it also has to be "accurate"

Heck, it didn't stop them in 1993.

Anyone know if the SAF is on board with this yet?

kilimanjaro · January 26, 2012, 12:11 AM

You could outlaw the Mauser Broomhandle with that language.....not to mention about 99% of modern semiautos.

spanishjames · January 26, 2012, 12:20 AM

Under a proposed IL bill, it would be illegal to "manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed" the following items. This would "not apply to a person who possessed a weapon or attachment prohibited by subsection (b) before the effective date of this [bill], provided that the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date."

(A) Any of the firearms or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as:
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and
(ix) any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

(B) a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; or (iv) a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

(C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:
(i) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(ii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(iii) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(iv) a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(v) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or
(vi) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;

(D) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

"Semi-automatic assault weapon" does not include:
(A) any firearm that:
(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
(ii) is an "unserviceable firearm" or has been made permanently inoperable; or
(iii) is an antique firearm;
(B) any air rifle

If this passed, I'd have to report my Saiga rifle since it could be in the A category, and maybe a 22 rifle with a tube magazine in the B category. I could sell them out of state, or hand it down to an heir. Or not provide proof of ownership and become a criminal.

I'm just curious, how may of you would be inconvenienced by a law like this? If so, what type of firearm would you have to report? I must admit, all the shrouded, revolving shotgun, fixed magazine talk had me wondering if these things actually exist.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstat...0&SessionID=84

Boatme98 · January 26, 2012, 12:54 AM

You've got to be kidding. Isn't anybody in the state hammering their reps. over this?

**Spats McGee** · January 26, 2012, 09:26 AM

My question is this: What if you do not have "proof of ownership?" I don't know how in-state, private party sales are handled in IL, but zero paperwork is required in Arkansas for such a sale.

spanishjames · January 26, 2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

What if you do not have "proof of ownership?

I think it means you go to the State Police and tell/show them what you have along with serial numbers.

**Spats McGee** · January 26, 2012, 10:21 AM

You're probably right. I'd have to research further to know for sure, and I unfortunately do not have time to do that right now. To play devil's advocate in a hair-splitting legal sense, taking the weapons down to the ISP and showing them the serial numbers only shows possession, not necessarily ownership. Whoever stole my 1911

in 2009 could show someone the serial number, but they don't legally own it. I keep hoping that they'll take it down to the Arkansas State Police and show them the serial number . . . Maybe then I'll get it back.

jimbob86 · January 26, 2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

I think it means you go to the State Police and tell/show them what you have along with serial numbers.

What? So they can arrest you for posessing something you are not supposed to have?

Gun laws like this have been putting good people in jail for stupid reasons for a long time now..... all in the name of Public Safety.

**44 AMP** · January 26, 2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

You could outlaw the Mauser Broomhandle with that language.....not to mention about 99% of modern semiautos.

Which is,I believe the true intent of the law....

Some places the Broomhandle is already outlawed, or restricted, because it's an "assault weapon", the magazine is not in the pistol grip! I'm sure that applies to those models with detatchable magazines, anyway.

**Tom Servo** · January 26, 2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

the magazine is not in the pistol grip!

True. Even worse, it can take clips. Now I know what they meant by "assault clips."

**44 AMP** · January 26, 2012, 12:57 PM

Leaving aside (for now) the entire ban on ownership of all those things AFTER the effective date of the proposed law, the requirement to provide proof of ownership to the police within 90 days is going to create total registration of all "legal" arms covered by the bill.

So, in effect, the state will have a record of all the arms covered under the bill, who owns them, and where they live. And anything not on the state's list will be illegal.

Didn't see any allowance for "providing proof of ownership" past the 90 days, so right there its going to create a whole class of "criminals" simply because it is more than a bit unrealistic to believe everyone in the state who owns such property will be made aware of the requirements and be able to comply within the alloted 90 day window.

What about a serviceman who owns something on that list, and is currently deployed? Are they to become a criminal the next time they set foot in the home state? Apparently the sponsors of this bill think so....

By the language used, the ban would cover ALL semiautomatic rifles. Even those "sporting" ones made by Remington and Browning, because....

Quote:

(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

Got news for you, the forearm of your rifle is a "shroud that partially encircles the barrel"....

All your semi auto tube magazine .22s are banned, too. Because they hold more than 10 rnds.

Can't have a Desert Eagle, either, becuase tis too heavy (more than 50oz, unloaded).

About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....

I'd give you my honest opinion of the whole idea, but I can't do it honestly without violating the language filters.

We have laws that say you cannot shoot people for fun and profit. Why cannot legislators see that laws beyond that are a waste of time, effort, and most importantly, MONEY?!!!

**Spats McGee** · January 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

. . . . the requirement to provide proof of ownership to the police within 90 days is going to create total registration of all "legal" arms covered by the bill.

So, in effect, the state will have a record of all the arms covered under the bill, who owns them, and where they live. And anything not on the state's list will be illegal.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

. . . .
Got news for you, the forearm of your rifle is a "shroud that partially encircles the barrel"....

Again, that was my impression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

. . . .About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....

Did you see this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illinois General Assembly, HB1294

Sec. 24-1.10. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
(a) As used in this Section:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
(1) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or
(2) any combination of parts from which a device described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition or any device that has been made permanently inoperable.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), it is unlawful for any person within this State, beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly, to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, a large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . . [What follows are the grandfather clause and exemptions for law enforcement, prison guards, national guardsmen, etc.]

Source: http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStat...84&LegID=59044

Al Norris · January 26, 2012, 04:52 PM

This is a dupe of this thread: Attn Illinois citizens: New anti gun bills headed for the house

Merged.

spanishjames · January 26, 2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....

They'd be banned as well under this bill. As well as .50cal ammo and rifles I believe. This is a perfect example of the state banning things that sound "scary". I'd never even heard of a "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12".

All this does is make me want the banned items more.

Davey · January 26, 2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

You've got to be kidding. Isn't anybody in the state hammering their reps. over this?

Of course we are.

I spoke with my rep's office aide and one thing she told me that I didn't know is that there are two committees in IL. They have passed the first. The bills still need to go to a specific committee where it will be debated, amended and voted on. Then it'll go to the house where it will again be debated, amended and voted on.

They've only gotten past the first step which makes me feel a lot better. The assault weapons ban from Acevedo is basically the same thing he's tried to push since maybe 2005.

The chances of these three bills becoming law are a bit on the slim side but we are still rabidly calling our reps.

I've called a dozen+ of the pro carry bill reps from last year's vote and I'd say most of them would be against these trash bills.

If any of you guys have gun friendly friends/relatives in IL please ask them to make a quick call to their rep's office or shoot off some emails. It'll help.

C0untZer0 · January 26, 2012, 11:53 PM

Ya these bills are awfull.

To answer someone's question - yes I'm at least one person who would be affected by this. I'd have to tell the State Police I have an Intratech Tec-9M, and I have no proof of ownership. I bought it in 1987 and have moved several times since then - lost the receipt long ago.

I'm not going to get too worked up over it though...

I'll make my phone calls, write my e-mails, and put a little money aside to give to the campaigns of the politicians running against these people.

January 25, 2012, 10:39 AM	#31
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Could be. From the Magnum Research website: Mark XIX Desert Eagle Pistol Specifications .50 A.E. Weight w/empty magazine . . . . 1998.6 grams (71.4 oz.) __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

January 26, 2012, 12:20 AM	#37
spanishjames Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2010 Posts: 553	What am I? Under a proposed IL bill, it would be illegal to "manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed" the following items. This would "not apply to a person who possessed a weapon or attachment prohibited by subsection (b) before the effective date of this [bill], provided that the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date." (A) Any of the firearms or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as: (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr AUG; (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and (ix) any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; (B) a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; or (iv) a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; (C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following: (i) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; (ii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (iii) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (iv) a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; (v) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or (vi) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm; (D) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the following: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine. "Semi-automatic assault weapon" does not include: (A) any firearm that: (i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (ii) is an "unserviceable firearm" or has been made permanently inoperable; or (iii) is an antique firearm; (B) any air rifle If this passed, I'd have to report my Saiga rifle since it could be in the A category, and maybe a 22 rifle with a tube magazine in the B category. I could sell them out of state, or hand it down to an heir. Or not provide proof of ownership and become a criminal. I'm just curious, how may of you would be inconvenienced by a law like this? If so, what type of firearm would you have to report? I must admit, all the shrouded, revolving shotgun, fixed magazine talk had me wondering if these things actually exist. http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstat...0&SessionID=84

January 26, 2012, 12:54 AM	#38
Boatme98 Senior Member Join Date: April 5, 2008 Location: Mid Tennessee Posts: 357	You've got to be kidding. Isn't anybody in the state hammering their reps. over this? __________________ It's good to be the king.

January 26, 2012, 09:26 AM	#39
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	My question is this: What if you do not have "proof of ownership?" I don't know how in-state, private party sales are handled in IL, but zero paperwork is required in Arkansas for such a sale. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

January 26, 2012, 10:21 AM	#41
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	You're probably right. I'd have to research further to know for sure, and I unfortunately do not have time to do that right now. To play devil's advocate in a hair-splitting legal sense, taking the weapons down to the ISP and showing them the serial numbers only shows possession, not necessarily ownership. Whoever stole my 1911 in 2009 could show someone the serial number, but they don't legally own it. I keep hoping that they'll take it down to the Arkansas State Police and show them the serial number . . . Maybe then I'll get it back. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

January 25, 2012, 08:59 AM	#27
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Davey, have you used Reverse Robo Call? http://reverserobocall.com/ I was think of compiling 3 lists of Illinois poilitians - Pro, Con, and "my" representatives and creating at least two different messages and trying RRC.

January 25, 2012, 10:34 AM	#29
Davey Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2010 Location: Not far enough from Chicago Posts: 394	I've heard of that Robo Call thing. The antis used something similar last year shortly before our carry bill came up for a final vote. It reeked of desperation. We're better than that.

January 25, 2012, 10:36 AM	#30
Davey Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2010 Location: Not far enough from Chicago Posts: 394	Yeah I read that hooded/masked part and was bewildered that a representative would think that that is something we need in Illinois. As if carrying the gun wasn't already illegal. I also noticed that the new bills call for a ban on semi autos that weigh more than 50 ounces unloaded. Is this an attempt to get rid of the Desert Eagle?

January 25, 2012, 10:40 AM	#32
Davey Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2010 Location: Not far enough from Chicago Posts: 394	Figured as much. I also thought it might be used to axe the Judge and Governor revolvers but I don't think revolvers are being considered semi automatic.

January 25, 2012, 09:25 PM	#34
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	@44 you are correct, as far as I know the 17 did come before the 18. Not sure about 92/93. H&K VP70 was first though . I think this just highlights how asinine this law is. Trust me I already contacted my rep but sadly Carol Sente is a co-sponsor of this bill, I am just counting down the days until hopefully I can vote her out of office.

January 26, 2012, 12:11 AM	#36
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	You could outlaw the Mauser Broomhandle with that language.....not to mention about 99% of modern semiautos.

January 26, 2012, 04:52 PM	#47
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	This is a dupe of this thread: Attn Illinois citizens: New anti gun bills headed for the house Merged.

January 26, 2012, 11:53 PM	#50
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Ya these bills are awfull. To answer someone's question - yes I'm at least one person who would be affected by this. I'd have to tell the State Police I have an Intratech Tec-9M, and I have no proof of ownership. I bought it in 1987 and have moved several times since then - lost the receipt long ago. I'm not going to get too worked up over it though... I'll make my phone calls, write my e-mails, and put a little money aside to give to the campaigns of the politicians running against these people.