Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s Time To Put Our Progressive Values Into Action
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to this morning’s edition
Posted in:
* Every news outlet mentioned the threat by the Illinois State Rifle Association to file suit against the new gun dealer licensing law. But Jonah Meadows at Patch explained what the group was actually threatening to do…
The Illinois State Rifle Association has opposed the bill. Executive Director Richard Pearson said the group is considering a court challenge to the new law. He said it discriminates against small business owners and is aimed at reducing the total number of legal guns in the state by raising their cost and making it harder for law-abiding firearm owners to purchase them.
“We think that it’s totally unfair, and laws do have to be fair, in spite of what the legislature thinks,” Pearson said, suggesting the bill would do little to reduce gun trafficking and instead function mainly to drive gun dealers out of business and owners and their business out of state. “I assume that Gov. Pritzker is trying to get the economic development award from Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kentucky.”
Under the law, owners of gun shops would need to pay the required $300 (for dealers without a retail location) to a maximum of $1,500 for a license from state police. They would also have to ensure shops have operational locks, surveillance equipment and alarms while keeping an electronic inventory and have employees go through annual training. The owners must provide a copy of a valid federal license to state police, who must accept a dealer’s “safe storage plan” to provide an Illinois license.
Another component of the new law requires state police to publish information about firearms used in crimes and penalize those who do not maintain records of private gun sales.
I’m not really sure how the law discriminates against small businesses or whether that’s even actionable. A little help in comments would be appreciated.
And I think they’d have to prove the law was purposely drafted to make business so difficult for small dealers that they’d go out of business and, as a result, deprive people of their right to own a gun.
These are not small hurdles, but I didn’t think they’d win the concealed carry case, either. So, we’ll see.
* And then there’s the procedural aspect…
Lawmakers passed the bill with simple majorities more than six months ago on May 30, the penultimate day of regular session. The state constitution says bills that pass both chambers must be sent to the governor within a month, but Senate President John Cullerton made sure the bill didn’t go to former Gov. Bruce Rauner, who said he planned to veto it.
Cullerton put a procedural hold called a “motion to reconsider” on the bill, which kept it from Rauner’s desk. That hold was lifted Jan. 8 and sent to Pritzker Wednesday.
Using a procedural hold isn’t a new trick. Longtime statehouse observer and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Kent Redfield said it’s technically possible for lawmakers to hold a bill that passed in one General Assembly and then pass it onto a new governor. He said it’s an ambiguous area that he’s not aware has been fully litigated.
“Particularly if it’s controversial legislation involving something like gun control measures … there certainly would be a court challenge,” Redfield said.
[Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois Executive Director Todd Vandermyde] said his group is looking a number of options, including a legal challenge. The law is set to take effect this summer.
“It just shows the political chicanery that went on with this, that they knew that former Gov. [Bruce] Rauner would veto this bill because of its anti-business, anti-Second Amendment repercussions,” he said.
The courts here have almost always been super reluctant to deal with legislative process issues like this, so I’m thinking probably not, particularly since the state Constitution is totally silent on the matter.
Something else not mentioned much in the coverage was that House Republican Leader Jim Durkin and six of his HGOP colleages voted for the bill (Andersson, Bellock, Breen, McAuliffe, Olsen and Winger), while four Senate Republicans voted “Yes” (Curran, Nybo, Oberweis and Rooney)
* I’ve been a customer of Siddens firing range for years and they also sell guns and conduct pistol and concealed carry training. Great people. Salt of the Earth. I’ve never once had a bad time there and I highly recommend going if you’re into that sort of thing.
I’m sure they’re not happy with this law. Just the opposite. But no business owner in the history of the world ever jumped for joy at new regulations. Again, we’ll just have to see how this all works out.
…Adding… Like I said, businesses don’t like regulations, even when the regulations wouldn’t touch them at all…
Supporters of the bill said federal regulators are stretched too thin, but opponents say the new licensing is expensive, and could force small dealers out of business.
The director of operations at On Target gun shop in Crystal Lake said they are already doing what the law will now mandate.
“It’s not just the straw sales that are producing the guns that are killing people, it’s illegal stolen guns from other states that are brought up to Illinois. So why take it out on us?” said Tom Dorsch.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 10:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s Time To Put Our Progressive Values Into Action
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to this morning’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A new regulation that actually stops people from buying guns illegally and/or stops bad people from getting guns would be fine.
This regulation does none of that.
Comment by Token Conservative Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 10:58 am
The nerve of State legislators to regulate tools of death /snark
Comment by Anon E Moose Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:04 am
== The courts here have almost always been super reluctant to deal with legislative process issues like this, so I’m thinking probably not, particularly since the state Constitution is totally silent on the matter. ==
I agree with Rich on this; don’t see the courts getting in the middle of procedural issues.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:06 am
I’ll double-check the Human Rights Act to see if it protects against this type of discrimination…
Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:06 am
Im pro 2nd Amendment and have no issue with this at all. But Im also not a business owner and understand their point.
Comment by Generic Drone Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:11 am
Where I have a problem with this procedural move is that Cullerton took action on a 100th GA bill AFTER the 100th had adjourned sin die. I get that GAs have done similar holds before, but usually the Gov is inaugurated before the GA adjourns, so this issue is very different.
I think there’s a good argument that the law could be overturned on this basis alone. And I’d argue that is should.
Comment by Get a Job! Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:16 am
==and laws do have to be fair==
Huh? Is that the standard now?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:16 am
Are they alleging discrimination against small businesses on a Constitutional level? An equal protection claim of sorts? I am not really sure what they are gunning for (sorry I couldn’t resist), but if that’s what they have in mind there is a lot of case law out there that says such a claim would not be viable.
Comment by The 5th Deputy Gov. Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:17 am
== I’m sure they’re not happy with this law. Just the opposite. ==
I discussed this with my local, full-time firearms dealer back when it was proposed and passed. They weren’t thrilled with it but also didn’t see it as much of an impact except for the fee and a bit more paperwork. Already has all the storage / alarms / surveillance items in place except may need to keep the video longer. And they have a proven track record of safe storage; in an attempted burglary where a car was driven into the shop, nothing was taken because all the firearms were secured.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:20 am
One question I have is: will the small guy who operates out of his home, be required to provide all the security features that are mentioned? If the security features are required for a home business, I could see the added burden.
Another thought…if the burden is too great for a home dealer, in the more rural areas and they start closing shop, will that cause burden to the buyers who purchase firearms from out of state? If firearms are sold to an IL resident in another state they must be sent to a licensed dealer in IL, you cannot take it with you.
Comment by Metro East Transplant Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:21 am
495 shooting deaths and 2962 shooting in Chicago last year. Lets revisit this number in a year to find out the effectiveness of this legislation. I’d put my money on zero.
Comment by seenthebigpicture Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:21 am
Meh, filing a lawsuit makes for a good funder plea. Need some sort of dystopian threat to keep money coming in.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:22 am
It doesnt ban anything. It doesnt restrict a gunowners rights.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:23 am
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/17/criminals-get-guns/
I bought a gun online. Legally purchased and had it shipped to a local FFL who charged me $25 for the legal transfer to my possession. He probably does less than 20 transfers a year. He is a retired LEO doing business out of his house and everything is legal and by the books. How much is he going to have to charge me next time?
To you hoplophobes it doesn’t matter. You’ll be all for it if it drives prices up or gun sellers out. It doesn’t fix anything.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:24 am
If the law is unduly burdensome duplicative and restrictive I see their point. The extensive federal background checks licensed sellers have to go through would be redundant and inefficient at a state level. Once agian Law abiding business owners/citizens are being punished for those that are not. This will not solve the illegal guns on the street problem.
Comment by theCardinal Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:25 am
The ISRA may have a chance with litigation, and somewhat ironically, they will probably owe any chance of success they have to precedent set by pro-choice abortion facility cases. There are a litany of cases pertaining to government regulation hampering a woman’s choice to receive an abortion by imposing regulatory requirements on abortion providers.
Ultimately ISRA will have to find some instance of actual harm which may be more difficult than in an abortion facility case. Regulations may increase to cost of a particular gun, but there are other cheaper new guns a prospective gun owner could buy for the for the same or lower price they would have to pay for the gun they wanted. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to buy the exact gun you want, just to buy and own a gun. Most abortion facility cases deal with the regulations seriously hampering a provider’s operations to the point were abortions are cost prohibitive and the provider would go out of business (or so they may claim).
Comment by Reserved Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:26 am
Procedurally, I don’t see how they succeed. Cullerton removed the motion to reconsider on January 8, before the 100th GA adjourned sine die. From that point the GA has 30 days to send the bill to the Governor. They sent it to the Governor in 8 days. I fail to see a violation of the Constitution.
Comment by My Button is Broke... Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:35 am
===To you hoplophobes ===
Triple-word score in Scrabble aside (and getting me to Bing what the word meant), I don’t see how insulting people’s concerns as irrational or using pejoratives furthers the conversation on this. People have reasonable considers, and no law is perfect. So if this does not work - contribute to the conversation with a better suggestion and get 60-30-1 to go along with it.
Comment by Name Withheld Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:41 am
we don’t have enough supervision from the Feds because the NRA kept reducing the ATF budget. as others have stated here, there are other things that have both Federal and State overview. things that are designed to kill should have at least that oversight. and if it prevents home dealers from operating, well, that is an area that has wide issues. someone I know sold guns that way and his records were not the best. not something that was in my house, so not in my purview and I told him to do better. guns used in crimes were all purchased legally originally. we have so many controls on other products, why not the one designed to kill?
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:42 am
===There are a litany of cases pertaining to government regulation hampering a woman’s choice to receive an abortion by imposing regulatory requirements on abortion providers===
Yeah, but significant regulations are allowed. It’s only when the states put truly undue hardships on the clinics that the regs are shot down.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:52 am
The abortion and gun rights issues are not related but fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum due to historical chess moves in the two-party system.
If I don’t like the abortion law in my state, I can go to another state and have an abortion.
If I don’t like the handgun purchasing law in my state, I cannot go buy one in a neighboring state.
Comment by Duty to Complain Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:12 pm
Speaking of lawsuits - whatever happened to the lawsuit against the Pritzker campaign for alleged human/civil rights violations?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:19 pm
I suppose we have Clarance Thomas to thank for the guns / abortion comments. When the 2A folks are as clear about the 8th Amendment, then maybe I’ll take them seriously.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:27 pm
“hoplophobes”
Ok, I Googled it — but I still have a question: Do all the fetishists use this language to identify themselves?
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:28 pm
First off, I agree with Rich; Siddens is top-notch. Visit them soon, if you want instruction or practice. On the legislative angle; it was a sleazy way to get a controversial bill signed, but the Illinois Supreme Court probably won’t be interested in down in the weeds with the Legislature on a procedural matter. On the “It’s designed to run small businesses out of business”, track; they may get some traction there with the right suit. The unfortunate thing about Pearson’s public comments is that he always throws out ridiculous phrase or two that mar a legitimate point he’s trying to make. (Maybe it’s the fund raising messaging others see in it, or not…)
Comment by Gantt Chart Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:29 pm
I have to think this law is tinkering around the edges, much similar to the anti-abortion states do with their restrictions. I don’t think it is a major, though. Actually, the concealed carry licensing is more onerous: 120 days to do a background check that was already done for the required FOID, $150.00 fee on top of $200.00 training. Training I get, but gotta think the intent was to price out lower income people.
Comment by wondering Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 12:55 pm
::we don’t have enough supervision from the Feds because the NRA kept reducing the ATF budget::
Last time I checked, the NRA had no control over the federal budget, and I’m sure you know so much more about record keeping than a federally licensed dealer.
Comment by Cornfed Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:07 pm
Since Mcdonald v. City of Chicago the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment which makes states and municipalities junior partners in gun cases. The 14th Amendment is now going to be used as a hammer depending on who controls the Supreme Court on gun cases. The Illinois State Rifle Association may well argue in court duplication of licensing is no longer needed now that the 2nd Amendment has been fully incorporated .
Comment by steve Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:16 pm
===Last time I checked, the NRA had no control over the federal budget===
LOL
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:16 pm
Certainly, I am no fan of the NRA, but…Illinois was the last state to knuckle under on concealed carry. It took federal court and SCOIL decisions to get the state to comply with settled law. Illinois went into compliance kicking and screaming, given 6 months to comply asked for a 30 extenstion on that. If NRA is skeptical of Illinois legislative intent, can they be blamed? This suit is keeping up the heat…..if this, then what is next from the NRA perspective.
Comment by wondering Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:21 pm
State republicans and Pro-2A groups (and you folks that pop up here whenever there’s a post on gun legislation) should have put more thought and effort into dealing with the problems caused by Chucks in Riverdale and Midwest Sporting Goods in Lyons. Republican Rep. McCombie flat out admitted yesterday that they knew who the bad actors were, but didn’t want to do anything about it. If the ISRA and state GOP hadn’t been providing cover for these two places in the name of all “law abiding dealers” these past several years, you might not have this legislation now.
From McCombie’s press release on her (now) meaningless bill:
This legislation would protect law abiding FFLs by concentrating efforts on stopping those that are not adhering to the current laws. According to the 2017 Gun Trace Report, there are two source dealers, Chuck’s Gun Shop (Riverdale, IL) and Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), who are the retail source of more than one in ten crime guns recovered in Chicago.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:34 pm
Rich is one of those squishy gun owners that thinks our rkba still exists because of our benevolent betters in the state and federal legislatures.fact is, without pressure from the NRA and its members, those rights would have disappeared long ago. An inconvenient fact for gun owners who find the NRA distasteful.
Comment by Cornfed Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:39 pm
===An inconvenient fact for gun owners who find the NRA distasteful===
Considering what the NRA has been saying about legit news media over the past couple of years, I find the organization more than just distasteful. So, bite me.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:43 pm
Chucks and Midwest are scapegoats for Harmon’s vendetta against gun owners. Wasn’t the time from sale to recovery at a crime scene something like 11 years? When those are the only gun shops anywhere near Chicago, guess where the sale traces back to…
Comment by Cornfed Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:44 pm
The “legit news media” made their own bed by being completely biased on the gun issue.
Comment by Cornfed Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:52 pm
=To you hoplophobes it doesn’t matter. You’ll be all for it if it drives prices up or gun sellers out.=
No, you are.
=Rich is one of those squishy gun owners that thinks our rkba still exists because of our benevolent betters in the state and federal legislatures.fact is, without pressure from the NRA and its members, those rights would have disappeared long ago. An inconvenient fact for gun owners who find the NRA distasteful.=
I have my CCL and I do not support the NRA because their ridiculous positions and constant harangues do not support responsible gun ownership. The constantly refer to the @nd Amendment as some unchangeable sacred law, but is in fact a change to the actual constitution. It is in fact subject to change, interpretation and modification. The USSC says so. For so called “originalists” it only protects muskets.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 1:59 pm
==Chucks and Midwest are scapegoats for Harmon’s vendetta against gun owners.==
LOL, yeah OK. Look if you want to take that argument up with Tony McCombie - a republican state rep - feel free to. This is information provided by the GOP, not by Harmon.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 2:06 pm
=For so called “originalists” it only protects muskets.=
Also in the possession of the national guard (see original “well-regulated militia” context.)
Comment by Deadbeat Conservative Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 2:15 pm
The gun owner with whom I live says this is just fine. he’s unafraid of more oversight, in fact, he welcomes it. why? because there are too many out there who are irresponsible with how they handle their guns, and to whom they sell them. he says the irresponsible ones give guys like him a bad name.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 3:33 pm
If you are u=in the gun retail business and a $1500 permit for a year is going to deter you, you probably should get out of business.
Comment by Uncle Ernie Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 3:34 pm
Apparently being scrutinized by the feds and paying money to them isn’t good enough. Minus the ridiculous most gunshops I visit already have all the safety measures in places.
Comment by lowdrag Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 4:15 pm
The Siddens have always been fun at family gatherings.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 4:26 pm
=dealing with the problems caused by Chucks in Riverdale and Midwest Sporting Goods in Lyons.=
Hah, you mean problems like selling to citizens of IL with FOID cards who just happened to be residents of Chicago? and happened to be Black?
The real deal is that Chucks and Midwest outsold everyone else in terms of legal gun sales to Chicago residents. Those “problem” guns are by and large guns that entered a secondary market years later, often due to theft.
Comment by Duty to Complain Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 4:28 pm
Where to start. . .
Usually a law passed after January 1, takes effect June 1st. But we are being told that because of the hold it took effect the day it was signed.
this means that instead of having a year to put a new program together the State Police now have less than 180 days. That means rules, applications and all that good stuff.
The costs are $300 for non-retail and $1500 for retail licenses. They don’t define these very well. So now you are looking at a license that is 5 times the cost of a federal one. And in that all the shops in Cook County have local licenses on top of that and the question becomes when is enough enough. Yes Chuck’s & midwest both have local licenses.
Speaking of which the whole trace data is such a bunch of BS it isn’t even funny Yet both of those shops were audited by ATF in the last 24 months. no wrong doing was found and all their paperwork was in order. No letters of reprimand or complainant issues.
No dozens of ATF officers inspected both stores and found nothing wrong, no criminal charges, no suspension of a license. But thats not good enough for people who simply don’t like guns and simply want a whipping post.
The trace report was just a hachet job to try and sell this worthless piece of legislation. because it never took into account were any of the firearms stolen, if so how does that have anything to do with the store that sold them originally? How many times were they resold, gifted or traded and if sold by the book in the beginning, what does that have to do with the store? Nothing.
In the Chicago challenge to the gun store ordinance the 7thCOA found –
“Ezell prevented Chicagoans from meeting a Chicago Firearms Permit prerequisite of legal
gun ownership, the ban on gun sales and transfers prevents Chicagoans from fulfilling,
within the limits of Chicago, the most fundamental prerequisite of legal gun
ownership—that of simple acquisition”
And for JS, as to the orginalists, you guys keep trying to beat that one note b flat drum on muskets. You lost that arguement in Heller –
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
You lost the malitia argument too
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 4:32 pm
==If you are u= in the gun retail business and a $1500 a year permit for a year is going to deter you, you probably should get out of business.==
It’s $1500 for five years. So a gun retail business closed on Sundays and all major holidays would pay less than a dollar a day.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Jan 24, 19 @ 7:40 am