Illinois

Literally only Chicago voted against it, but the state governor appears opposed.  If it passes, it's a step forward.

UPDATE: The Senate is trying to alter the deal.

Democrats enjoy a supermajority in the Illinois House of Representatives, holding 71 seats to the GOP's 47. On Wednesday, the same day the US Senate voted down gun control legislation, powerful Democrat Speaker Michael Madigan tried to push a restrictive gun control measure through his chamber. The result was an open revolt by downstate Democrats, with almost half the Democrat caucus joining the GOP to kill the measure. The bill went down 31-76, a rare defeat for the legendary Madigan. 

"Worst CHL in America" goes down to defeat in Illinois. 

The shall-issue preemption version of concealed-carry got a significant majority vote (64-45) but needed a supermajority of 71 to pass.

The Illinois legislature is under pressure to pass some sort of concealed carry bill since a court has struck down their current law as unconstitutional. 

Hat tip to John Lott.

This is a denial of a motion to dismiss, so it's not so much a victory as it is preventing a defeat.

Personally, I don't see how banning gun stores could possibly be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, but the courts will have to work out the details of how that works.  Content neutral bans might survive -- such as residential zoning that doesn't allow storefronts of any kind.

It seems Illinois is having a bit of a problem keeping up with people requesting a Firearm Owner's IDentification card.  Illinois is one of the few states that requires permission from the state government before buying a gun, in a manner similar to how other states license people who want to carry a concealed firearm.  That is, you get one card when you first buy a gun, and you can buy additional guns without additional cards.  That makes it a pretty good proxy for new gun owners.

So, bearing in mind that Illinois is one of the more anti-gun states, and that today is the last day of March (so a few thousand more requests will likely arrive),  we can expect that Illinois has, or will soon have, 70K new gun owners.    Let's take that back a few months to when the gun control hysteria started:

1. December: 31,249.
2. January: 61,172
3. February: 56,078
4. March: Over 70,000.

Since Obama started his gun control push, Illinois alone has added 218,499 gun owners.  More than 200 thousand gun owners in four months, in one state out of 50.  Let's extrapolate.

218499*50 = 10,924,950

Assuming Illinois is a reasonable proxy state -- it's probably a little on the low side -- we're talking about 11 million new legal gun owners since Obama's gun control push.  In 4 months.  That's 33 million new gun owners if the rate continues for the rest of the year, or 10% of the population.

Now ask yourself: How many people went to a gun store to buy their first gun and found that the shelves were bare?  How many people left without buying when they saw the prices on what was available?  How many people gave up on the gun when they couldn't find ammunition for it?

On the issue of gun control, the politicians are still debating, but the people have spoken with their wallets.  Is the government listening?

Referring to the Sandy Hook tragedy as "a moment of opportunity," Schakowsky went on to say that "everything [is] on the table -- There's no question about it. We're on a roll now, and I think we've got to push as hard as we can and as far as we can."

When pressed on exactly what that meant, Schakowsky noted that her choice for the next ban would be handguns, followed by allowing individual communities to deny Second Amendment rights to those who live or travel within their boundaries.

Google has a long memory, Jan.

John Lott has the details, and the details are where the devil lives.  There are so many restrictions being piled on, many of them including "within a thousand feet of" or parking lots for, that by the time they are finished, you won't be able to carry anywhere, at least not within a city.

This isn't the Supreme Court, but it's one step closer.

During Feb. 22 testimony before an Illinois state house committee, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy admitted he's never seen anyone with a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID) commit a gun offense.

Why, then, does he want to impose gun control laws on honest citizens?

In the 1950s, Democratic politicians in Virginia, led by Sen. Harry Byrd Sr., undertook an effort called "massive resistance." Through various legislative and administrative means, they sought to circumvent the mandate for school integration that the Supreme Court had issued in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Similar stirrings can be heard today in Illinois--specifically, from the Cook County State's Attorney's office, which prosecutes crimes in Chicago. At issue is not the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection before the law, but the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

See, a federal court has ruled that Illinois must have some provision for legal carry of arms within their state.  Other states have carry laws that basically boil down to "every honest citizen without a license" (constitutional carry),  "any honest citizen who asks for a license" (shall-issue), and "you have to beg for permission, but sometimes we'll grant it."  Illinois was the only state that didn't even let you beg for permission, and the court decided that didn't pass muster under the 2nd Amendment, so it struck down the law and gave the state 180 days to come up with something else.

The legislature is still trying to figure out what to do, but some of the people testifying are saying that they don't have to do anything -- that they can just ignore the federal court ruling and continue to enforce their existing law, at least until the Illinois Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or another.

This calls for a toast.

Ladies and gentlemen... confusion to our enemies!

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this.  We have a special election in Illinois to fill an open seat, and party primaries to select the candidates.   One of the Democratic candidates is pro-gun enough to have received an endorsement from the NRA in 2010.  She's running on opposition to the assault weapons ban and standard capacity magazine ban, but supports expanded background checks.

"If you can tell me that banning another gun will go after the criminals, I'd be all for it. I'd be for anything that stopped the killing and gets guns out of the hands of criminals, but it won't work. (Chicago's) Cook County has had an assault weapons ban since 1993 and they have the highest murder rate in the country," she told The Hill. 

"That's why I refuse to just say I'm for it, knowing in my heart it's not going to work. It would have saved me a lot of grief, there wouldn't be all this money going against me, but I've been an elected official too long and I know too much. I know that won't work."

It will be interesting to see the results of this race.  Are there enough pro-gun voters in a Democratic primary in Illinois to make a difference?

More details at Legal Insurrection.

Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to a person to: (1) carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person, concealed or otherwise; (2) keep or carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person when in a vehicle; and (3) keep a loaded or unloaded handgun openly or concealed in a vehicle. Prohibits the carrying of the handgun in certain locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 30 days of receipt of a completed application and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. Establishes qualifications for licensees, certified firearms instructors, and instructor trainers. Provides for home rule preemption. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Prohibits from inspection and copying information about applications for licenses to carry a handgun and about license holders contained in the database created by the Family and Personal Protection Act, except as authorized by that Act. Amends the State Finance Act and the Criminal Code of 2012 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.

Note that the courts have struck down Illinois' previous law completely forbidding concealed carry as violating the right to bear arms.  I suspect this legislation would moot that case before it gets to the Supreme Court, but the fact that the courts have struck down the existing law means that some sort of concealed carry legislation is likely to pass.  Shall-issue is better than may-issue, and this bill seems to be pretty good at the moment.  It may of course be amended later.

Read the whole analysis at No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money.

Manchin, a moderate Democrat with an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, has also recruited his close friend, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), to help with the background check legislation. Kirk, who is much more moderate than Coburn and hails from a state suffering from urban gun violence, also plans to unveil legislation next week with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to make illegal gun trafficking a federal crime.

Illegal gun trafficking is already a federal crime.

The state of Illinois has been the last holdout state on the concealed carry issue, allowing neither open nor concealed carry of handguns by its residents for self-defense purposes.  Recent federal court decisions have ordered the legislature to respect their citizen's right to bear arms, though the exact nature of a new law on the subject is an open question.  The issue did bring up yet another prediction of blood in the streets from Chicago's police chief:

"I don't care if they're licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained? putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I'll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we're going to have tragedies as a result of that. I?m telling you right up front."

Now, it's important to understand that Illinois is the ONLY state remaining that does not allow some form of bearing arms.  None of the other 49 states which allow their law-abiding citizens to bear arms have had problems with this.  Crime did not skyrocket.  Blood did not run in the streets.  Police did not have to shoot down anyone they saw with a gun.

That police chief is dangerously close to saying his officers will shoot first if they see a gun, even if that gun is carried by a law-abiding citizen with a legal concealed-carry license.  I sure wouldn't want to be a Chicago resident with one of the first Illinois concealed-carry permits.  It will probably take lawsuits to get the police attitude corrected, which is rather hard on the people who get abused in the process.

If that sounds discouraging, that's probably the intended effect.

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago and close associate of Obama, has announced that he plans to pass new gun control measures within Chicago:

"First of all, I believe there's, I know there's a majority in the state, an overwhelming majority in the city for a ban on assault weapons, clips, and comprehensive background checks on all sales, wherever they take place, wherever the location may be. And there's also a majority in the legislature."

While this quote in particular doesn't offer many details, he's presumably talking about a ban on standard-capacity magazines and modern sporting rifles. 

As for his talk about background checks, he's referring to the so-called gun show loophole, which is nothing more than the ability to buy and sell property between private individuals without the government being involved.  Criminals will do this whatever the law says, and when law-abiding citizens do this it doesn't harm anyone.

The Armed School Teacher has a series of posts with contact information to oppose a variety of gun control bills just introduced in the Illinois legislature:

• Assault Weapons Ban
• Firearms transaction database
• May-issue FFL, expanded gun free zones, one gun per month, another assault weapons ban
• Outlaw private gun sales completely

There's one good bill, offering a concealed weapons licensing program, that will be going before the public health committee.

... if you live up there I suggest you call your legislators and remind them that what (doesn't) work for Chicago shouldn't be applied to the whole state.  It's also worth noting the tactics being used by the governor; he's coerced his police chief into making it an "us or them" issue.  This is the governor who travels with a convoy of 20 armed security officers, by the way.

Here's a sample of the idiocy in question:

Law enforcement complains the trading bill will let gun owners trade up to higher-powered weapons without waiting periods that discourage impulsive gun crimes. They also argue communities should have the right to pass strict rules on how weapons must be stored when gun owners are passing through.

Well, when gun owners are driving around their state with their firearms securely stored, unloaded, in a locked case in the trunk, as per the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, it would be kind of nice to know that the 20 little neighborhoods you drove through can't charge you with a crime because you didn't wrap the barrel with a pink ribbon. 

And as for firearm trading -- if someone already has a firearm, are they really going to be deterred from using it due to a waiting period before they can get a higher-powered firearm from a private individual?  Not to mention -- how exactly are they going to enforce this?  As usual, they will rely on the law-abiding gun owners to obey the silly laws and the criminals to break them, resulting in more shootings, resulting in more calls for gun control... at least until someone is smart enough to break the cycle by loosening gun laws.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is proposing to make it a misdemeanor for businesses to sell violent and sexually explicit video games to minors, a step that other states have tried with little success.

Blagojevich's proposed legislation would prohibit the distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18.

"We're talking about violent games that use realistic depiction of human-on-human violence, video games that include dismemberment and disfigurement, video games where the kids control the process," Blagojevich said Thursday.

I can agree that kids probably should not be playing video games involving such things without conceding any authority to the government for regulating their sale. We have freedom of speech because government cannot be trusted to make these decisions.

One of the constant costs of freedom is vigilance. Stay aware and tuned to what is happening in the arena of law, the legislature, where our rules for living in a free society are set in order to enjoy life under the rights accorded to us by God and the U.S. Constitution or wake up some day living under some type of totalitarian, communist or other repressive regime where those in power will tell you what to do, how to do it and when it will be done. Yeah, I know, how close are we to that already when considering things such as seat belt, helmet and headlight laws, blaze orange requirements when hunting or bans on leaf burning, just as simple examples.

Sigh.  This is definitely the big issue that the gun bigots are pushing, after the assault weapons ban expired.  They want this one badly, and they are pushing it in as many states as they think they can get it, plus introducing bills in Congress -- presumably to try to attach to the gun liability protection legislation. 

We need to tell our Congressfolk the same thing we did last year: no compromise on gun control!  If you have not already called your Congressfolk to tell them that this session of Congress, call them.  If you have already called, call them again.  And then send email.  And then write a letter.

Of course, they can't do it without lying:

.50 caliber sniper rifles, powerful enough to shoot down civilian airplanes during takeoff or landing, or taxiing on the runaway from over a mile away.

Even if you could hit an airplane while it was in the air, something that is practically impossible without a computer-guided machine gun and radar, all you would do is produce a few holes.  Passenger aircraft are simply not that fragile.

.50 caliber sniper rifles were designed as battlefield rifles to puncturearmor, attack personnel carriers and fuel tanks, and to be used forassassination due to the rifle's astonishing range and firepower, but areeasier to get in Illinois than a handgun.

Actually, .50 caliber rifles were designed as civilian rifles for long range target shooting.  The military adopted them after their invention.

"It is simply hard to imagine how anyone could be against preventing .50 caliber sniper rifles from falling into the wrong hands," said Thom Mannard, Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

Somehow, I think that the wrong hands Thom Mannard is referring to includes any hands that aren't attached to a police or military uniform.

Legislation backed by Daley that would limit the number of pistols people can buy and set up a licensing system for gun dealers failed Tuesday in a state Senate committee. 

So, let's see here.  Mayor Daley wants to set up a separate state-level licensing structure for gun dealers.  This will accomplish...

1. Add another hassle to the already long list of hassles already required to become a firearms dealer.
2. Add another fee to gun dealers, increasing the cost of firearms
   
3. Add another paperwork crime to charge "undesirable" dealers with
4. Duplicate the extensive federal licensing system already in place.
5. Create another expensive enforcement beaurocracy.
   
6. All of the above.

Somehow, I just can't work up any enthusiasm for that.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also voted against requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons, part of a broader bill to tighten laws on unlawful use of weapons.

What they actually did was vote against requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours or face criminal charges.  In principle, reporting a lost or stolen gun may be a good idea if you are sure you can't recover it yourself; the police may be able to return it to you, or at worst, charge the criminal who stole it.

But there are serious problems with attaching criminal penalties for failure to do so.   Aside from the injustice of throwing someone in jail for failure to file the proper paperwork, how exactly will locking up victims of crime solve anything?  Were they "asking for it"?  Owning guns in a "provocative manner"? 

Many gun bigots argue for registration schemes under two delusions:

1. That firearm registration helps solve crimes
2. That firearms will never be confiscated in the United States

The problem is, both claims are false.  Maryland and New York have each run multi-year programs that required all new, legally-sold guns in the state to be registered along with ballistic "fingerprints".  Neither registration system helped law enforcement.  Maryland's system may be dismantled this year at the request of the police, because it wasted money that could have been spent actually solving crimes.  Illinois has its own registration scheme, the FOID (Firearm Owner's IDentification) card. 

I mention this today because Illinois has just proved that it can happen here.  Specifically, according to the Illinois State Rifle Association:

If passed, HB 2414 would ban the possession of a wide variety of semiautomatic sporting firearms owned by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Illinois citizens. Under HB 2414, gun owners would have 90 days to surrender their firearms to the police, or face felony prosecution and stiff jail sentences. Any such firearms they surrender would be forfeited without compensation.

Or, as Diane Feinstein once put it, "Mr. and Mrs. Illinois, turn them all in."

This bill is unconstitutional on 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment grounds at least.   It must not pass. 

Senate Democrats on the Executive Committee hastily approved four gun-control measures Wednesday amid partisan rancor. Another Senate panel already had rejected much of the legislation, and some Republican senators repeatedly expressed disapproval at the work-around tactic. Senate Bills 1330, 1331 and 1332 were approved Wednesday even though the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected identical legislation earlier this session.

Seems to me that this is exactly the sort of tactic that the Democrats in the United States Senate would decry in terms similar to the so-called "nuclear option".  They don't have any problem using such tactics when they are in power, though.

Senate Bill 1332 was the only one of the four gun proposals that had not been previously rejected by the Judiciary Committee. It would mandate that dealers of "concealable firearms" - handguns - be licensed by the state. Violations would be a Class 4 felony, but the legislation would not apply to individual hobbyists buying and selling from their own collections.

Firearm dealers are already federally licensed.  This second, state license will either impose additional, unConstitutional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, or be little more than a tax on people the Democrats in power don't like.  Neither one is acceptable.

Under SB1332, gun buyers would be limited to purchasing one handgun each 30 days. The legislation is intended to curb the practice of "straw purchasers," where a legally qualified individual buys a gun for someone who is not qualified to make the purchase on his own.

And in the process, create a state-wide registration system.  Oh, never mind... they already have one, in the FOID card.

SB1331 would expand the definition of a "public nuisance" to include gun dealers who do not take "reasonable precautions" to ensure that purchasers do not use their weapons illegally.SB1330 would permit victims of gun crimes to sue anyone who "intentionally or negligently" delivered the gun, ammunition or silencer to an unauthorized buyer, straw purchaser or individual with criminal intent.

This legislation is just begging for lawsuits.  Literally.  Gun bigots in Chicago have already tried suing firearms dealers and manufacturers under existing laws and lost.  Now, they want to change the law and try again.  Unfortunately, it will probably work, if the legislation passes the whole Senate.   Gun owners in Illinois, contact your Senators and stop these bills!

UPDATE: Alphecca has another article that describes full-Senate votes on some, but not all, of the same bills.  It's unclear which article is more recent.  And to clear up any confusion, this is an Illinois issue, not a national issue.

Hopes for passage of a state law to close the gun show loophole faded as the state's largest gun control group pulled its support from the legislation's records-retention provisions.

The bill in question -- SB57 -- requires that all firearm purchases at gun shows be subjected to a criminal background investigation before the sale is allowed to be concluded. The intent of the legislation is to prevent drug lords, terrorists, and gang bangers from obtaining weapons at gun shows.

A second provision of SB57 seeks to protect the privacy and security of lawful firearm owners by requiring the Illinois State Police to destroy records of lawful gun purchases after a 90-day retention period. This provision greatly exceeds the federal record retention period of 24 hours.

This is what I call a deal with the devil.  It's this sort of strategy that got us here in the first place.  If we continue to compromise, and to meet gun bigots "halfway" in some kind of good-faith bargain, we will continue to lose.  Any gun owners in Illinois who understand that should undertake to educate the rest.

Once more, the Fifty Caliber Institute brings us word of two bills in the state legislature that are heading to the floor for a vote.  The NRA reports that gun owners' telephone calls to legislatures have already slowed these bills down -- but slowing them down is not good enough.  They need to be stopped.  

Contact with your elected officials is again needed, if this pointless legislation is to be stopped.  Illinois residents should contact their representatives within the next 48 hours.  A phone call would help greatly, a letter or fax sent by you TODAY would be even better.  Regardless of the means, you MUST contact them once again if you wish to retain your 2nd Amendment rights!                                                                                                                                                                             Even if you've already spoken to them, contact them again.  Tell your elected representatives that you OPPOSE HB1098 and HB2414.

While both bills ban the .50 caliber, HB2414 bans numerous semi-automatic rifles and shotguns as well.  Since most fifty-shooters also own shotguns and rifles of other calibers, HB2414 is doubly offensive to your rights.  Semi-auto bans failed to make a difference in crime at  the federal level.  They won't reduce crime at the state level.  And the fifty-caliber is historically even LESS of a threat, despite what Hollywood says.

Write and call your representatives today!  Since HB2414 also bans numerous other firearms, pass the word to your fellow shooters.  Ask them to contact their legislators as well.  Even if they don't own a fifty rifle, they have a stake in this too.

Contact your Illinois representative by telephone, or use the NRA's contact tool. 

When you do, tell them that you oppose both bills.  Tell them that voting for the bill that only bans the .50 is not an acceptable compromise.  Too many legislators are eager to claim political cover by catering to both sides.  Too many will be tempted to vote against the so-called "assault weapons ban" while voting to ban .50 rifles, and then claim they supported the lesser of two evils to prevent the greater from passing. 

That's the logic that got us where we are today, and it's time to change it.  No compromise.  No surrender.  Shall not be infringed.  That's the message your legislators need to hear from you.

Illinois has decided to close a loophole that doesn't exist.  The governor has signed a law requiring "unlicensed [gun] dealers" to conduct background checks on potential purchasers.  The problem is, there's no such thing as an unlicensed dealer -- either you are a dealer (in which case, you should be federally licensed) or you are a private seller (in which case, you need not be).  There's some question as to where the dividing line between those two categories should be, but if the BATFE thinks you're a dealer and you aren't licensed, they will try to put you in jail.

What this bill really does is require gun buyers to register their intent to purchase a firearm with the police and obtain permission for each purchase.  In short, it's registration.  However, since Illinois already has something they call a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, they already have registration of owners; this is just registering each purchase individually as well.

It's silly, and stupid, and won't do a damn thing to help.  But in terms of the state of liberty in Illinois, it's a salami slice rather than a large bite.

Oh well.

Hat tip to Alphecca.