Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s all one thing
Next Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
Posted in:
* From late last month…
Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords joined Illinois leaders Thursday to launch the Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition to urge the state’s leaders to curb the flow of illegal guns into the state.
The Gun Dealer Licensing Act would give authorities the tools to encourage better business practices among federally licensed gun dealers and hold corrupt dealers accountable.
From 2009 to 2013, 40 percent of the guns used in crimes in Chicago came from gun dealers within Illinois. But the group says legal loopholes and a lack of enforcement resources allow illegal guns to be more readily available.
* Sen. Don Harmon…
“Gun store employees often have access to huge inventories of guns and it’s just common sense to make sure the dealers and employees are just as responsible as the buyers.”
* From the Illinois State Rifle Association…
HB1016 WOULD SPELL THE DEATH OF GUN SHOPS IN ILLINOIS
This bill is nothing more than a backdoor effort to eliminate private firearm ownership in Illinois. If passed, HB1016 would heap tons of regulations, red tape, and restrictions on firearm retailers. Most gun shops would go out of business immediately. Those who survived the first cut would have to hire extra staff and raise prices drastically just to remain in compliance with the new law. New gun shops would be barred from opening, thanks to complicated licensing requirements. It would be just a matter of a few short months before there would be no gun shops in Illinois.
The proposal is here. I’m told an amendment is coming that would allow employees who have FOID cards to be exempted from the background checks.
Also, requirements to videotape the premises have applied to pawn shops for years.
* And the idea appears to be very popular among voters. From a We Ask America poll commissioned by proponents taken May 19th of 1,052 registered voters with a 3.02% margin of error…
There is currently a proposal in the state legislature to require firearms dealers to adopt certain business practices that will help prevent dangerous people from buying guns…like criminals, gang members, and domestic abusers. We’d like to know whether you agree, or disagree with each of the follow measures contained in that proposal.
Let’s start with requiring all firearms dealers to adopt basic store security measures.
Agree 90.10%
Disagree 6.37%
Not sure 3.52%How do you feel about requiring all employees of firearms dealers to get criminal background checks?
Agree 93.24%
Disagree 5.33%
Not sure 1.43%How do feel about requiring all employees of firearms dealers to receive training on how to spot a person who may be purchasing a gun for someone who cannot legally buy one themselves?
Agree 84.68%
Disagree 10.94%
Not sure 4.38%Do you agree that all gun dealers should be licensed by the state?
Agree 85.54%
Disagree 9.80%
Not sure 4.66%Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports these measures?
More likely 79.35%
Less likely 8.37%
No difference 12.27%
79 percent is a number that can move voters. This is gonna be difficult to defend against. Although the “more likely to vote for” number is lower (66 percent) among Downstate voters, according to the crosstabs. But even 72 percent of self-identified gun owners and 73 percent of R3 voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports those measures. That’s also enough to move voters.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 23, 16 @ 11:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s all one thing
Next Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How many of those polled know/understand that these dealers are already heavily regulated, checked, licensed, and audited by the Feds, and such “State licensing” would not do much of anything except add more paperwork and fees to businesses or individual FFLs?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 23, 16 @ 11:56 am
===already heavily regulated, checked, licensed, and audited by the Feds====
Ain’t like it used to be. Congress has cut off funding for compliance checks. And I, for one, don’t think it’s unreasonable to make sure employees have background checks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 23, 16 @ 11:57 am
“Most gun shops would go out of business immediately…It would be just a matter of a few short months before there would be no gun shops in Illinois.”
Wow, that’s some serious hyperbole.
Comment by illini97 Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:03 pm
Further, the fact that they have IDFPR overseeing these licenses, instead of ISP that oversees all other gun regulation in coordination with the Feds, tells me the crafters of this bill have a serious misunderstanding of current regulations and licensing.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:07 pm
And exactly how is this measure supposed to make the State of Illinois any safer? Can the supporters of this bill point to any significant issue with guns being stolen or illegally sold by a licensed FFL? Until they do then those of us who value our 2nd amendment right should be wary of this bill.
Comment by Remington Rick Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Apparently gun store owners don`t have the ability or sense to make sure their employees meet background requirements. Once again an overeach by big brother!!
Comment by highspeed Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:11 pm
You’ve got to be careful about background checks. People might have an arrest record from a distant past, or for crimes that don’t have anything to do with weapons or future criminal activity. I’m not willing to put them out of a job.
Comment by NoGifts Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:11 pm
I thought we were trying to “ban the box”?
Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:15 pm
===Also, requirements to videotape the premises have applied to pawn shops for years.
What gun shop doesn’t videotape the premises? Seriously…
===
Ain’t like it used to be. Congress has cut off funding for compliance checks. And I, for one, don’t think it’s unreasonable to make sure employees have background checks.
The FOID exemption makes this pretty easy to do for the vast majority of businesses. My guess is that places like Walmart would actually have a harder time.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:18 pm
It bothers the liberals that they don’t have as much gun control as they used to have. So I don’t blame them for trying to cook something up. Gotta have red meat for the base after all. To the bill, I hope it goes no where.
Comment by Saluki Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:18 pm
Sounds like another big payday for the gun manufacturers and dealers. You already have to take a number at Cabella’s (Hoffman Estates) firearms’ counter at lunch time.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:22 pm
Comment by Remington Rick Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Chuck’s in Riverdale
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:29 pm
Well the 2nd Amendment does explicitly say “A Well Regulated Militia”. The Government regulates the Militia.
Comment by Sam Franklin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:30 pm
So why would good dealers oppose providing more training to their employees to reduce straw purchases? And how many would even be affected by employees having a background check or FOID required?
If the goal of the legislation is to keep firearmss out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them and nothing in this law would keep a qualified person from buying a firearm, what is the problem?
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:33 pm
Where’s the usual warning from Rich about strongly leading questions?
Comment by m Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:34 pm
@saluki:
Using your own logic I guess it bothers the Conservatives that they dont have as much bathroom regulation as they used to have (remember Coloreds Only?).
So I don’t blame *them* for trying to cook something up. Gotta have red meat for the base after all.
Comment by Stanley Motss Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:35 pm
I would say most smart retail establishments would have video cameras, but I don’t know that they should be required. With pawn shops, I believe it’s primarily to catch people selling stolen goods.
Comment by m Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:36 pm
===Chuck’s in Riverdale
Seems to have a specialty in straw purchases, but everytime is shocked, shocked that straw purchases are going on there.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:36 pm
===With pawn shops, I believe it’s primarily to catch people selling stolen goods.
And in this case it would help catch straw purchases.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:37 pm
Problem #1 with the bill is the idea that anyone in the State of Illinois who transfers 8 or more firearms within each calendar year must have state licensure.
This is far in excess of the Federal requirement for having an FFL. Here is the federal requirement: “Dealer in firearms — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C)).” So the State of Illinois proposal is also an attempt to limit anyone in the state to transfer more than 7 firearms a year outside of their immediate family.
Because of Section 70 of this bill, any person who wants to sell more than 7 firearms within a year in Illinois, at guns shows, or even privately, must submit to a state inspection of their homes to obtain a license if they do not have a separate place of business. They must show all arms in “their inventory” are stored in a manner consistent with Section 70 inclusive of alarms, and a video surveillance system.
Effectively this would wipe out numerous gun collectors from selling guns to limit their collections or change the nature of those collections. It will eliminate most non-FFL holders from selling at gun shows. As a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association I totally support our opposition to this bill, but the problems with the bill are not limited to established and current FFL holders in our state. It could impact many collectors who are exempt under existing federal regulations.
Comment by Rod Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:39 pm
And here I thought I had the lock on hyperbole!
HB1016 WOULD SPELL THE DEATH OF GUN SHOPS IN ILLINOIS
I bow to you Illinois Rifle Association. I am but a padwan learner.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Well Trump said on his First Day in office that schools will not be gun-free zones anymore.
I’m certain this is what our Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment of the Constitution!
Comment by Eric Dittmeyer Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:45 pm
…”prevent dangerous people from buying guns…like criminals, gang members, and domestic abusers”
Im not surprised to see strong support for this comment. Who wouldnt want that? The problem I have with the bill is that it will do nothing to accomplish this goal. There is already a whole division of the federal government that overseas legal dealers. The ATF can arrive on site and require weeks of reviews and paperwork. Any dealer with even the smallest of paperwork anomaly can be shut down so dealers are very careful. This is just an attempt to discourage legal firearm ownership by pols that dislike the idea.
Comment by Alskid Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:46 pm
===Problem #1 with the bill is the idea that anyone in the State of Illinois who transfers 8 or more firearms within each calendar year must have state licensure.
Seems like a reasonable standard. How is that not engaging in commerce?
—It will eliminate most non-FFL holders from selling at gun shows
Again, why is this a bad thing? Gun show sales are engaging in business. The ATF doesn’t have the budget to actually enforce the law, but if you are engaging in sales at a gun show, that would appear to be dealing firearms. There is a choice of course, get an FFL.
—-Effectively this would wipe out numerous gun collectors from selling guns to limit their collections or change the nature of those collections.
Are they collectors or dealers? Are collectors selling over 8 firearms a year regularly? Or are these dealers claiming to be collectors to sidestep the law? Even if there are some in this category, you are down to a mighty small number of people being affected.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:47 pm
So now the question is whether our elected leaders will respect public opinion or give in to the fringe NRA yet again for something that is very clearly not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Comment by Left Leaner Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:50 pm
This bill may not have the support suggested by the polling. The list of witnesses seeking to voice an opinion during judicial committee hearing on HB1016 was heavily stacked for the opposition - 4998 oppose versus 979 in support
Comment by lech W Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:53 pm
lech, that’s a silly comparison.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:55 pm
@left leaner:
Agreed. Just re-reading my copy of the Constitution of the United States of America and it clearly spells out “A Well Regulated Militia”.
Its not a violation at all. In fact this idea is in compliance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
Comment by Sam Franklin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:07 pm
Sam Franklin+1. Not suprized that the ISRA would gin up their base.
Comment by Hedley Lamarr Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:10 pm
The bill is a huge overreach.
The feds have a standard as do we for being engaged in the business. 8 guns a year is not it. As well as the way it is drafted, you couldn’t even sell 8 to a gun shop without being a dealer.
As for background checks on employees, most people who work at gun shops have FOIDS & CCLs from the state. there may be a few employees who live across a border and work here, but they are a tiny minority. So the selling point from the press conference is bogus.
Dealers already have a federal license. this is about them wanting to have a state agency to run gun shops they don’t like out of business. They tried suing them out and the Supreme Court said no. They tried banning them and the 7th & 9th circuits have said no.
they tried county ordinances and the locals issued their own licenses. And so far all the town that have them in Cook County are happy with them. They could shut them down at any time if they thought there was a real problem.
Lastly, under the bill one would have to get 4 different licenses or run a gun shop. 1 for the person applying, one for the corporation, one for the responsible party, one to work behind the counter.
training — most people in the industry take classes and such at trade shows. but now we have another underfunded agency who said that can’t staff this, coming up with what 2 hours, 10 hours, 20 hours? Who pays for that?
it could be $2000 or more to get a license. hense, it does have the ability to drive a lot of smaller dealers out drying u the number of outlets for people to legally buy a gun.
Comment by Todd Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:10 pm
===most people who work at gun shops have FOIDS & CCLs from the state===
Then it would be no big deal to make sure the rest have FOIDS or CCLs.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:12 pm
—–The feds have a standard as do we for being engaged in the business.
What volume should qualify as engaged in business?
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:16 pm
@hedley:
Just a Strict Constitutionalist like Alito.
In case you missed it, but here is the full text of the 2nd Amendment which was Adopted in December of 1791:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The 2nd part of the Amendment is directly tied to the 1st part, or in other words the *right* to bear arms is tied directly to A Well Regulated Militia. The Government regulates this Militia.
Comment by Sam Franklin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:26 pm
What a vague and worthless poll.
Comment by Liberty Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:26 pm
Rich that’s not what the bill says or does. The proponents should have to make the case for regulation.
Harmon’s statement is devoid of reality much less an understanding of the industry
Comment by Todd Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:27 pm
Todd:
You said “most” several times in your comments. If you don’t like this bill then why don’t you work on something that gets the background checks and training to ALL. Seems reasonable to me.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:27 pm
When I was on felony review in Cook
County I took statements from a lot of murderers. Absolutely none got the gun from a gun shop. Stolen in transit, taken from a cop or guard.
Stolen from a house. This bill means nothing. Think federal prosecution of all felons with a gun.
Comment by Rough Rider Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:28 pm
@Sam — you must have missed this thing called the Heller Decision. . . .
Comment by Todd Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:29 pm
D — not my job to rite their bills for them. But to kill bad ones.
they didn’t come in and say hey we want to make sure all people in gun stores should be X or have Y.
a national anti-gun group came in and wanted a gun control bill. So here we are.
I saw most, because I know of one person working in a store who lives in Indiana. So I would say maybe 95% or more are residents and all the dealers I know read the law to say you must have a FOID to handle or deal with firearms. Most in Cook & collars won’t show you oe without a FOID.
But tell me where you draw the line? Under their bill my son could not work in a family business since he’s under 21 — part of their bill. does it apply to janitors, bookeepers? maintenance guys?
Again, they didn’t come what Harmon talked about in his press release, they came to run places like Midwest, Shore, Maxons and chuck’s out of business
Comment by Todd Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:36 pm
Todd- It’s just a bill.
Comment by Hedley Lamarr Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:48 pm
Todd:
Again, there should be no issue with having all people have a background check and training.
This is why I despise the gun control debate. There is absolutely NO reasonableness from either side of the extremes.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:52 pm
@todd:
Please explain to me why Samuel J. Alito wrote this in the *Heller* decision:
“We repeat those assurances here, Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
Comment by Sam Franklin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:52 pm
==== chuck’s out of business
I’m good with that. Again, shocked, shocked that straw purchases are going on in Chuck’s.
But really, what is the level at which it becomes a business in selling guns? Gun rights groups never want to put a number on what qualifies someone as a dealer. Why not?
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:02 pm
This or nothing else will make any real difference t the criminal element.
Largely a feel good smoke screen for saying ‘we are dong something” although it might prevent a few mentally ill people from obtaining firearms0 but I doubt even that.
Comment by Federalist Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:30 pm
@demoralized
I agree. Because its in the Constitution.
And in addition to your points, gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance as well.
Comment by Sam Franklin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:31 pm
D — again its not about background checks. I generally don’t think we or the industry has a problem with that in general. Unless it’s about adding tousands of dollars to the bottom line in more fees and regualtion. But again, that is NOT what the bills does.
Training is a bit of a different issue as it depends on what, how much and who does it as well as content. Most already do it.
@Sam, Alito didn’t write Heller, Scalia did. So I’m not sure what you’re quoting.
@ Arch, and you have proof of what is taking place at Chuck’s There have never been any criminal charges against them. And trace data doesn’t mean anything other than first point of sale. There is a definition of engaged in the business. If I sell my collection, in the triple digits, becuase I want to get some cash, does that make me a dealer? I’m not in it for a business. Further more the feds wouldn’t issue me a license for that. So it’w never tied to a number, but instead actions. Funny we use the same definition in the criminal code for prosecutiing unlicensed dealers, which they ignored
Comment by Todd Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:38 pm
To ArchPundit I posted the federal definition of a firearms dealer, it is not based on the number of firearms sold in one year. It is “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms…”
This proposed law does not even consider the possibility that a collector may sell eight guns and buy four at the same time. The definition is simply based on transfers of 8 or more.
ArchPundit as to collectors who sell more than 7 guns, if you go the Rock Island Auction Company on June 24 at 7819 42nd Street West, Rock Island, IL you will find numerous collectors selling 8 or more firearms. For collectors this is not an uncommon thing.
For Americans who own no weapons, selling 8 firearms in a year seems massive like you are a black market arms salesman. For those us who own multiple weapons, its completely different.
By the way the ATF does investigate individuals who transfer many weapons a year without an FFL. They can check records very carefully to determine if its the person’s principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.
Comment by Rod Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:41 pm
This bill is about trying to score points against the big bad NRA, nothing more, nothing less. Gabby and her astronaut need to go home and mind their own business.
Comment by DGD Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Fun with surveys…
There is currently a proposal in the state legislature to require firearms dealers to adopt certain business practices that MIGHT help prevent dangerous people from buying guns…like criminals, gang members, and domestic abusers. However, some believe the measure will be a heavy burden to local gun shops and may even lead to more difficulty obtaining firearms by law-abiding citizens due to some gun shops having to close. We’d like to know whether you agree, or disagree with each of the follow measures contained in that proposal.
Let’s start with requiring all firearms dealers to adopt basic store security measures unknown at this time but being developed by a state government agency.
How do you feel about requiring all employees of firearms dealers to get costly criminal background checks even though most have already been checked when they got their FOID cards?
How do feel about paying higher taxes so all employees of firearms dealers receive training on how to spot a person who may be purchasing a gun for someone who cannot legally buy one themselves?
Do you agree that all public officials and their security details should have to abide by the same gun restrictions as everyone else?
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports these vague measures or someone who supports the 2nd Amendment and enforcing the gun laws we already have?
Seriously, this exercise should be taught in social studies classes in high school. Regardless of what side you’re on, surveys are easy to manipulate to get the type of answer you want in a way that makes your position look “reasonable” to “most voters.”
Comment by Anon Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:31 pm
@Sam, you are mistaken. See DC vs Heller or McDonald vs Chicago. The SCOTUS has affirmed the individual right to own firearms has nothing to do with militias. That said, they will allow regulations that are not construed as being unreasonable.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:02 pm
Gun control is not crime control.
Pass mandatory criminal control!
Step one.
If charged with having/using a firearm unlawfully….
No reduced bail, Subject to an automatic dangerousness hearing, No plea bargains, No reduced sentences, No early release from prison, and minimum state sentencing laws for assaults and/or robberies committed with a firearm.
No need for step two.
If you believe jails are over crowded and think most criminals should receive community service, go for it. But, when a criminal gets to the point of carrying a gun, a different and more serious ball game and mandated rules needed.
Comment by Joe Potosky Monday, May 23, 16 @ 5:02 pm
How big is the gun industry in illinois? its probably bigger than the “social” service industry. mark my words if this bill passes it will have a negligible effect on gun crimes particularly in chicago. Chicago’s issue is racial segregation both of schools and communities. gimmicky gotcha gun laws wont make a dent its sad to see promoters get peoples hopes by diminishing law abiding citizens access to guns.
Comment by atsuishin Monday, May 23, 16 @ 8:10 pm
how big? 2440 licensees. 2065 are retail types with over 100 manufacturing licenses. Those guys employ 7500 or more people. if dealers average 3 per store or license, thats another 7500 in round number. So we probably start with 15000 people or more in the industry as a base line.
FFLs that work out of their jome are probabley 1 person. but Sheels in Springfield is probably 50-60. so the number I suggest could be low.
B ut now amendment 3 has been filed and it’s worse in part
Comment by Todd Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 8:13 am
To those quoting “well regulated militia”, I’d suggest that you do your homework and find out what it actually means in the correct context. A simple Google search will enlighten you that the basis of your argument is totally out of and contradictory to the correct meaning.
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 9:11 am
There is absolutely zero reason why we shouldn’t require gun dealers to be licensed. The state requires licenses for teachers, roofers, hair braiders, and it’s time to license gun dealers.
@Logic not emotion - Up until the Heller ruling, there was over a century of legal precedent that the well regulated militia meant that owning a gun wasn’t an unlimited right.
The hyperbole coming from the gun lobby is ridiculous.
Comment by Night Rider Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 7:30 pm