Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The Full Text of HB 148 has been filed!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Occupied Territory , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    82

    The Full Text of HB 148 has been filed!!!

    Please forget everything that you have read about HB 148 and start reading the real bill. It was filed today as Amendment 2 and replaces everything in the shell bill that the anti-gunners have been picking apart for months.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...ID=11&Session=

  2. #2
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigC178 View Post
    Please forget everything that you have read about HB 148 and start reading the real bill. It was filed today as Amendment 2 and replaces everything in the shell bill that the anti-gunners have been picking apart for months.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...ID=11&Session=
    Haven't gotten through all of it yet, but so far it looks very promising.

    I'm just wondering how Maryland (and maybe other states??) will be providing "a notarized document stating the applicant is eligible under the laws of his or her home state to possess a handgun."

    I'll keep reading, and hope it's as good as I think it is.
    Last edited by Mr H; 04-28-2011 at 07:01 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There are too many Place Enumerated off-Limits under 2011 Illinios House Bill 148.

    Furthermore, The Exceptions Enumerated under some of those off-Limit Places are NOT Uniform, and They Vary Quite Considerably.

    Personally, I would Eliminate, or Author for Elimination, Paragraphs (x) through (xiv) of Paragraph (a) of Section 70 of This Bill, and would further Refine Paragraph (iv) to Exclude The Second-Half of its Application to only Government Buildings during such Time that such Building is Holding a Meeting under the same Enumerated Paragraph.

    Asking for $100 does seem Excessive, and FOID CARDS should be Illegal, Period!

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    If I understand this bill correctly, no provision for any sort of reciprocity but a person could get a nonresident permit. This nonresident permit would require taking the Illinois course. Is this correct?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    There are too many Place Enumerated off-Limits under 2011 Illinios House Bill 148.

    Well, at least the NRA lobbyist didn't let shooting ranges get designated as "off limits".

    The bill is terrible, but the NRA lobbyist probably figure that only a terrible bill could be passed in Illinois.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Occupied Territory , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    If I understand this bill correctly, no provision for any sort of reciprocity but a person could get a nonresident permit. This nonresident permit would require taking the Illinois course. Is this correct?
    You are correct.

    We need a 71 vote super majority to preempt home rule and to over ride a veto. The ugly truth of Illinois politics is that there were a miriad of lobbying groups that needed to be involved in crafting the bill in order to gain support or in some cases to stay neutral. Previous attempts were derailed by opposition from law enforcement and by outspoken opposition by the retailers association. This year we have open support from the Illinois Police Chiefs, the Illinois Sheriffs Accociation, the Chicago Sgt's, the Chicago Lt's, the transit workers, and many others.

    One of the points that the law enforcement groups demanded was uniformity in training. The bill is not perfect, but I'd rather have somethings to fix than nothing at all.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Occupied Territory , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    There are too many Place Enumerated off-Limits under 2011 Illinios House Bill 148.

    Well, at least the NRA lobbyist didn't let shooting ranges get designated as "off limits".

    The bill is terrible, but the NRA lobbyist probably figure that only a terrible bill could be passed in Illinois.
    So will you be getting a permit?

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigC178 View Post
    You are correct.

    We need a 71 vote super majority to preempt home rule and to over ride a veto. The ugly truth of Illinois politics is that there were a miriad of lobbying groups that needed to be involved in crafting the bill in order to gain support or in some cases to stay neutral. Previous attempts were derailed by opposition from law enforcement and by outspoken opposition by the retailers association. This year we have open support from the Illinois Police Chiefs, the Illinois Sheriffs Accociation, the Chicago Sgt's, the Chicago Lt's, the transit workers, and many others.

    One of the points that the law enforcement groups demanded was uniformity in training. The bill is not perfect, but I'd rather have somethings to fix than nothing at all.
    Understood. I guess there is the deal breaker for me. If I could carry on my MI CPL, that would be best. A distant second-best would be that they would accept an NRA training certificate for the training portion. Since it appears that I would need to invest serious time and expense in the process to be allowed to cc, I guess I will continue to do what I've always done when visiting Illinois... and try to avoid it like the plague until I actually need to visit.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Occupied Territory , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Understood. I guess there is the deal breaker for me. If I could carry on my MI CPL, that would be best. A distant second-best would be that they would accept an NRA training certificate for the training portion. Since it appears that I would need to invest serious time and expense in the process to be allowed to cc, I guess I will continue to do what I've always done when visiting Illinois... and try to avoid it like the plague until I actually need to visit.
    If I were in your shoes I'd keep my fingers crossed and hang my hopes on the Illinois State Police's inefficiancy. If they fail to create and approve a training course within 90 days the NRA Basic Pistol Course will by law be acceptable training.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    If I understand this bill correctly, no provision for any sort of reciprocity but a person could get a nonresident permit. This nonresident permit would require taking the Illinois course. Is this correct?
    Initially, the following seemed to indicate Non-Res licensing would be relatively simple (provided the home state would provide the needed documentation).

    Section 25. Qualifications of an applicant for a license.
    The Department shall issue a license to an applicant completing
    an application in accordance with Section 30 of this Act if the
    person:
    (a) is at least 21 years of age;
    (b) has a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card, or
    if applying for a non-resident license, has a notarized
    document stating the applicant is eligible under federal
    law and the laws of his or her home state to own a firearm;
    (c) resides within the State of Illinois or resides in
    another state and requests a license under Section 65;
    (d) has not been convicted in Illinois or any other
    state of (i) a felony, (ii) a misdemeanor involving the use
    or threat of physical force or violence to any person
    within the 10 years preceding the date of the application,
    or (iii) a misdemeanor involving the use, possession, or
    distribution of a controlled substance or cannabis within
    the 10 years preceding the date of the application;
    (e) has not been a patient in a mental institution
    within the past 5 years, has not been adjudicated as a
    mental defective, and is not mentally retarded;
    (f) is not free on any form of bond or pretrial
    release, other than for a traffic offense or other
    disqualifying act, and has no outstanding warrants in
    Illinois or any other state;
    (g) does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic
    beverages as evidenced by the applicant having 2 or more
    convictions for violating Section 11-501 of the Illinois
    Vehicle Code or similar provision of a local ordinance
    within 5 years preceding the date of the application, or if
    the applicant has elected treatment under the supervision
    of a licensed program in accordance with the Alcoholism and
    Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act or similar laws of any
    other state, within 5 years preceding the date of the
    application; and
    (h) has completed firearms training and any
    educational component required in Section 85 of this Act.
    A read of Section 85, however does appear to mandate an Illinois-based course (or if the course materials aren't produced in a timely manner the NRA Instructor course would substitute.

    Personally, I would prefer that IL adopt a known standard, rather than set their own.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr H View Post
    I'm just wondering how Maryland (and maybe other states??) will be providing "a notarized document stating the applicant is eligible under the laws of his or her home state to possess a handgun."
    Where in the bill did you get the idea that the notarized statement would come from a government entity?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by ilbob View Post
    Where in the bill did you get the idea that the notarized statement would come from a government entity?
    Sec. 25 (b), as quoted in a prior post.

    While it's not expressly worded that it would come from (in my case) Maryland, the [home state's] validation would be necessary in there, somewhere.

    I would hope that could/would be challenged, at least for clarification.

    Now, if it's simply something like an affidavit attested by a FFL, that's a different story.
    Last edited by Mr H; 05-01-2011 at 04:52 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    46

    Hb-148.

    I was part of the team that help craft this bill with Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's lobbyist, as the representative of Guns Save Life.

    This process began with a good, fair bill. One that addressed the concerns of our more reasonable critics and at the same time gave us a nice bill that would solve issues like carry in nice restaurants, carry on campus except buildings, open carry (!) and a few other niceties. And it was a bill we felt could be passed with a super-majority right out of the gate.

    Well, in the course of securing enough votes (and endorsements) to assure that it would get passed, the bill has evolved substantially. IMHO, it isn't the "good" bill it was formerly, but it is certainly better than what we've got now.

    Sure, residents of may issue states would probably like this bill, but unless you live in North Carolina, I can't think of many shall-issue states that would like to have this bill.

    And for those visiting IL, no reciprocity is a PITA as well.

    It's probably got the votes to pass.

    Will the governor veto it?

    Like Todd says, and I agree: "I expect the governor to give this bill the same careful consideration as he gave the tax hike bill where he said he wouldn't sign a tax increase over 1%".

    Look for a lot of bluster and probably a whimper at the end.

    Or, alternatively, it could get blocked if enough votes are co-opted to sustain a veto. In which case I'd look for a lot of downstate Dems not to return come the 2012 elections.

    Downstate Dems are PLEADING with their leadership for some "red meat" for their constituents after the tax hike vote, the gay marriage bill, ending the death penalty and more...

    John

  14. #14
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by templar223 View Post
    I was part of the team that help craft this bill with Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's lobbyist, as the representative of Guns Save Life.

    This process began with a good, fair bill. One that addressed the concerns of our more reasonable critics and at the same time gave us a nice bill that would solve issues like carry in nice restaurants, carry on campus except buildings, open carry (!) and a few other niceties. And it was a bill we felt could be passed with a super-majority right out of the gate.

    Well, in the course of securing enough votes (and endorsements) to assure that it would get passed, the bill has evolved substantially. IMHO, it isn't the "good" bill it was formerly, but it is certainly better than what we've got now.

    Sure, residents of may issue states would probably like this bill, but unless you live in North Carolina, I can't think of many shall-issue states that would like to have this bill.

    And for those visiting IL, no reciprocity is a PITA as well.

    It's probably got the votes to pass.

    Will the governor veto it?

    Like Todd says, and I agree: "I expect the governor to give this bill the same careful consideration as he gave the tax hike bill where he said he wouldn't sign a tax increase over 1%".

    Look for a lot of bluster and probably a whimper at the end.

    Or, alternatively, it could get blocked if enough votes are co-opted to sustain a veto. In which case I'd look for a lot of downstate Dems not to return come the 2012 elections.

    Downstate Dems are PLEADING with their leadership for some "red meat" for their constituents after the tax hike vote, the gay marriage bill, ending the death penalty and more...

    John
    I appeciate the background info.

    I agree it's "better than nothing"... but, as a Marylander, frequent IL visitor, and possible future resident of Logan Co., I was (and still am, to a point) hopeful.

    Will be keeping an eye on this. Thanks.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    **** me...PDR of MD resident moving to the Gulag of IL...talk about bad to worse. You have my sympathy. That pos quinn has already said he's vetoing it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    46
    Vote this afternoon!

    Looks like we've got the votes we need to pass it now that a gaggle of Southern IL legislators have returned from helping out with the flooding in Southern Illinois.

    The other side is throwing everything they've got at defeating this bill in the House.

    We've got greater support in the Senate than the House, so to the Governor's desk it goes, in all likelihood.

    The question is will Quinn be able to co-opt enough votes to sustain his veto?

    John

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •