IL citizens please read

[RichT]

OK, it's my turn on the soap box.


Recently, 3-13-03, several bills went to the Senate Judiciary Committe here in IL., regarding firearm ownership. Of the 15 bills that were presented, only 2 of them passed. Meaning they will now go to the Senate Floor to be voted on by all of the Senators in the state. In the past, even with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, there was a "grandfather" clause. Not this time, however. If these bills get passed, 90 days later, if you are found to be in possession of the said firearms, you will be charged with the minimum a Class 3 Felony. (for those not residents of IL, Class 4 serves less prison time than a Class 1).

What are some of the firearms listed in the new proposed bill?

I'm glad you asked.

Hidden amongst all of the othe goble-de-gook is:

"a firearm having a caliber of 50 or larger."

How big is 50 caliber, you ask?

By comparison, a 12ga shot-gun is 72cal. So, if the new law passes, and you are caught with your great-grandfathers single-shot 12ga shotgun, he used to provide your family meals with...you are going to be charged with a felony. Even though, you have never even rolled through a stop sign, you will be doing time in a State Penal Institution right along next to the triple axe murdering gang-banger. I know that sounds extreme, but I'm a Law Enforcement Officer here in IL., and see the people in our 32 prisons.

Who can this be, you ask!?

Because the majority of our bill sponsors are from the northern 1/3 of our state (i.e., Chicago, which has ban on firearms not registered in the county after 1982 AND still is in the top 10 cities in the US for the highest crime rate per capita).

What can be done?

Please call your local state Senator and tell them you are against any more restrictive firearm laws in IL and to please vote NO on SB1194 and SB1195. Here is the link to find the Senators in IL.

http://www.legis.state.il.us/senate/

http://www.legis.state.il.us/reports/rptMemberList.asp?gaid=3&ChamberId=S

OK, I'm done.

For now, anyway!

[Nooboon]

Hi Rich,

Isn't it disgusting that so many people seem to think that penalising, punishing or removing firearms from law abiding firearms users is going to stop crime.
The weapons that are the problem are the ones that no one knows about not the ones that the average citizen has locked away carefully, but we are no longer allowed to keep them.

We have had similar problems here in NZ with bills being presented recommending many restrictions to firearms owners, when it has been proven many times that this actually leads to an increase in crime levels. Recreational hunting is my number one hobby (even above fish keeping!) and it angers me to see this trend worldwide. We have been winning the case here.......for now.

Good luck talking sense to these people.

[AquariumPro]

I have contacted Jan Schakowsky, now a US representative, to see what she could do. It may not matter in her case, as she is a real big-time gun-control advocate and has voted for every gun-bill introduced since she took office. I know her personally as her son and I used to work together at Old Town Aqaurium in Chicago (he is now one of the owners of OTA).

I have just emailed all the IL sentaors and representatives about this.

I have also contacted the IL chapter of the NRA with similar emails. There are a large number of firearms rights advocates who are working to defeat SB1194 and SB 1195 in the IL senate. What bothers me is that so many GOP IL senators also seem to be supporting these new bills.

I need to read the wording of those bills. It is hard to believe that they have not excluded shotguns in the wording, though it would not surprise me. Shotguns are still legal in most IL areas for both hunting and home-protection, and besides other long-guns used for hunting, are the ONLY home-protection firearm allowed in Evanston, which is a "don't ask - don't tell" city when it comes to handguns, but still allows all long guns (16" barrel or longer) in the home and unloaded in motor vehicles. Handguns are only legal here if securely locked up, unloaded and disassembled (cylinder removed from revolvers, slide removed from semi-autos).

Up to this point, I've been legal. However, if SB1195 does not exclude shotguns, I will be in big trouble. I will also have to move my disassembled .50 Desert Eagles from the premises. I have known about this for some time, and have been very proactive in the fight against these bills in writing letters and emails. However, I had not yet had a chance to read them in detail, and will go do so now.

Thanks RichT

[AquariumPro]

I've just read both bills, and though I'm alarmed and very upset about yet another gun law here in Illinois (where the violent crime rate keeps rising but gun laws keep getting tougher), I am relieved to see that these bills do specifically exclude "normal" pump shotguns and have not limited shell-capacity for those. The 5 shell limit on semi-auto shotguns is silly, as these have already been banned for manufacturing by at the federal level.

However: What make me mad is that these bills do not, as you pointed out, have any type of granfather clause or language that would allow weapons of the types they describe to be owned if their possession pre-dates the bill. I sure hope this gets defeated!

Why can't lawmakers look at the violent crime rates in states here in the U.S. where gun laws are practically non-existent? In Florida, N.H. and Texas for example, violent crime rates are very low, and almost any form of gun ownership not banned at the federal level is permitted.

[RichT]

I am relieved to see that these bills do specifically exclude "normal" pump shotguns

You're right and wrong about the shotguns being excluded. Like all laws, it depends on how deep you (or the State's Attny.) wants to read into it. In SB1195 it states "any firearm having a caliber of 50 or larger". Now, even though this is listed under the definition of a semi-automatic assault weapon, this one and only definition is listed all by itself. So, does that mean only semi-auto's that are larger than 50cal or does that mean just exactly what it says ANY firearm? It depends on how technical you want to get.

Another thing, among many other things, about this bills regarding shotguns is under the threaded muzzle section. It states if the muzzle is treaded, it is considered an assault weapon and is banned. Now, a normal sportsman wouldn't even think twice about his shotgun, that has screw in choke tubes, being considered an assault weapon. BUT, depending on how deep you want to read into it, by rights, the muzzle end of all shotguns that have screw in chokes tubes, do in fact have treaded muzzles. :eek:

I, along with about 100 other pro-gun citizens,was at the Capital on 3-13-03 and sat in on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let me tell you, the sponsor of the bill (Senator Munoz D-dist. 1) would have no remorse if his bill caused every firearm in IL to be outlawed. Except his, of course. By the way, Senator Munoz is also a 7 year veteran Chicago City Police Officer, who is born and raised in Chicago, and is approx 35 years old. The reason I mention this is because in 1982 the city of Chicago enacted a firearm registration act. This meant anybody owning a firearm had to "register" it with the city. The catch was, they only accpeted so many. Now, if you move into the city and try to register a gun, they say "I'm sorry but we aren't accepting anymore firearms applications." Basically, you're SOL. Anyway back to my point, this happened BEFORE Munoz was legally able to own a firearm. So, when he did reach legal firearm owning age (18 here in IL.) he couldn't, unless he moved outside of the city. He never had the taste of "Freedom", therefore he never missed it when they took it from him. And now he wants to shove Chicago's gun problems on us down state.:mad: :mad: :mad:

I got to stop for now before I break my keyboard. The longer I type, the madder I get and the harder I press the keyboard keys.

Oh yeah, speaking of Republicans. Republican Senator Kirk Dillard dist. 44 (I think) vote either Yes or "present" for ALL 15 bills on the 13th. The first 2 he voted yes on, and after getting hissed by us in the room for being a traitor to his political beliefs, he simply voted "present" on the remaining 13.

[AquariumPro]

Wow you are right!

I just re-read 1195 and see what you mean. The language of the shotgun part comes later in the bill under a subsection where the limitation of semi-auto shotgun capacity is stated. This section excludes pump and break-open shotguns from the law, but I can certainly see where there is a conflict in the way the bill is worded when the two sections are compared. The bill writers are obviously not firearm owners. Shotguns are rarely referred to as "caliber" weapons, but this could be left open to interpretation.