Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Huge population loss for Cook County
Next Post: Civil unions bill advances
Posted in:
As I’ve said before, just because a bill passes a committee (particularly in the House) doesn’t mean that it will clear the full chamber or the other chamber. With that in mind…
Gun purchases would be limited to one per month and anyone selling a gun would have to get a background check on the prospective buyer under gun control plans an Illinois House committee endorsed Wednesday.
Currently there are no legal limits on how many guns someone can buy at one time. As proposed, someone wanting to buy more than one within 30 days would have to ask state police for an exemption.
Supporters said a dozen guns a year should be enough. “I think the benefits far outweigh any hardships,†said Chicago Police Commander Nicholas Roti.
But opponents said the state already has laws targeting people who buy numerous firearms and pass them on to criminals. […]
Similarly, Democrats supported requiring background checks when an individual sells or gives a handgun to someone else. The requirement would apply to all private sales.
Meanwhile, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released a statewide poll yesterday of 603 Illinois registered voters. Survey method and poll results follow. Click the pics for larger images…
The entire document can be downloaded here. [pdf file]
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 8:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Huge population loss for Cook County
Next Post: Civil unions bill advances
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So if I were to sell my 20ga bird gun to one of my hunting buddies I would have to get a background check on him first. How am I supposed to do that? This is a ridiculous requirement that, like most gun laws, will have no effect on illicit gun use. I think its likely the sponsors of this legislation know this quite well and are more interested in the image of the bill than in actual effect.
Comment by cjsIII Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:23 am
cjsIII - If he’s your buddy, give him the gun.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:50 am
Re: poll - I would sure like to see the actual questions that were asked.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:58 am
Any poll conducted by the ICPGV using only 603 respondents has to be slanted in the anti-gun direction.
Comment by Pro-gunner Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 10:05 am
cjsIII, give your buddy the gun and then have him cut a check to one of your kids for their “birthday” or “christening.”
Comment by Anon from BB Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 10:57 am
What about collectors who may be wanting to buy a set of guns? I mean, say you have an option of buying a set of 1 derringer, 1 flintlock rifle and 1 civil war era sidearm. The state police are not going to be able to handle all these types of requests for exemptions in a timely manner.
It would be nice if they could exempt historical weapons (such as the civil war piece or the flintlock) because these are typically only purchased by collectors and I really can’t imagine someone trying to hold up a 7-11 with a Civil war era sidearm.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:00 am
Military grade .50 cal
Of course, this law would also ban 0.50 cal black powder rifles. Now, that was indeed used by the Military in IL.
In 1779……
I’d like to see a parallel bill, just replace guns with abortion…….
You know, if the DC gun case goes to the Supreme court, dont expect a 5-4 decision. I bet Ginsburg (and one or two others) will throw gun control under the bus to lock in more protections for abortion.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:08 am
If those were the questions asked, no wonder the results were as they were. “assault weapons”… “military grade”. Sounds like “loaded” questions to me.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:29 am
Didn’t see any questions about “assault” tools (hammers)?
Comment by What were they thinking? Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:35 am
It appears that the anti-gun crowd will not be happy until all Illinois gun owners have been incarcerated.
Comment by Pro-gunner Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:31 pm
I don’t think its that bad, Pro-gunner. However, IMO the typical active gun control proponent sadly equates “compromise” with a total disarming of the populace.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:37 pm
One gun a month, i.e. twelve guns a year, seems fair to the average collector and/or hunter.
If he or she isn’t an average collector or hunter, then there is an exemption provision to allow him or her to go to the State Police to get more.
Seems sensible, fair and fits the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment.
Comment by George Ryan's Cellmate Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:59 pm
“Ken in Aurora” the actual questions are highlighted in green at the top of each box.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:24 pm
Sorry, Rich. I thought your entire initial post was fair game for comment.
On point: I personally don’t have a problem with one gun a month so long as there’s a provision in the law that will force ISP to automatically grant exceptions except for specific reasons - like a “shall issue” CCW. I don’t want to see it be up to the current mood of the ISP.
However, to some extent I think it’s a duplication of effort. IIRC dealers are already required to notify the Feds of multiple gun sales to a single purchaser within a certain time period (30 days)?
It strikes me as “feel good” legislation – something to make the soccer moms feel better about those icky guns and their hairy, smelly owners. Sigh.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:53 pm
Of course the whole post is fair game. You wondered about the actual questions. I pointed out where they were.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:54 pm
Oh, and I don’t really have a problem with something regarding private sales. I don’t sell guns, but if I did I’d sure like to have a way of determining if a FOID is still valid…
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:54 pm
Rich, I misunderstood you. A few of the questions are somewhat slanted in my eyes.
I would give the survey more validity if, instead of asking (as an example):
“Should the state ban the sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons?”
they had asked:
“Should the state ban the sale and possession of semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal to sell and possess?”
“Assault rifle” is a loaded term that is misused – by definition, an “assault rifle” is fully automatic. Every time I see a TV piece about “assault rifles” backed with stock footage of a M4 zipping though a watermelon on full auto I want to choke.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 2:07 pm
Yellow Dog, even if I give it to him it appers I’ll need to do a background check on my buddy. Hmmmm, maybe if I loan it to him and he buys me a really good lunch. The obvious point (to me)is when our lawmakers are cooking up rules we just can’t figure out they are wasting their time and ours. Ken in Aurora put it far better than I - this is feel good for soccer moms.
Comment by cjsIII Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 4:46 pm
This poll must have been taken without any regard to Southern Il or the thousands of gun owners who would disagree with most all of this crapp!!
Comment by NIEVA Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 5:33 pm
Enforce the existing laws on the book with vigor. Gun laws infringing the 2nd Amendment do nothing to prevent the criminals from having guns if they so chose.
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 7:46 pm
NIEVA: I hope that the Southern Illinois Senators will help to defeat SB 1471, the .50 caliber gun/ammo ban.
Comment by Pro-gunner Friday, Mar 23, 07 @ 8:41 am