Illinois tries again to ban so-called 'assault weapons,' .50 caliber rifles

All three of these bills were introduced by Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat (of course). He is both an anti-rights politician and a Chicago "Only One." Let's hope he has the drinking and anger issues under control by now.

If HB 1294 passes, Acevedo and friends will have another problem. We "assault weapon" owners won't feel compelled to present our "proof of ownership"--proving that our hands aren't cold and dead will be enough--and Acevedo is not likely to enjoy that proof. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?

Gun bills on the move in Illinois and Missouri

As originally written, HB 5751 would ban not only the sale and possession of the "scary" items mentioned above, but also their manufacture. Perhaps surprisingly, given the state's political climate, Illinois has several manufacturers of such items. In past years, in arguing against those bans, it has been pointed out that lawmakers who send good jobs and tax revenue out of the state are doing the state's economy no favors. That, apparently, is why the amendment would permit manufacture of "assault weapons," etc., but only for sale out of state.

What, though, is the underlying message that sends? If these "weapons of war" are the scourge on society that Rep. Acevedo clearly believes them to be, is it not rather unprincipled of him to allow them to be inflicted on other states, simply to protect the jobs and tax revenue? Or is it that Illinois residents are somehow lacking the restraint that prevents residents of other states from shooting up their communities with Illinois-manufactured "assault weapons"? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner (better late than never). Please read it (digg it?) and spread the word.

The shifting priorities of the ICPGV

I've spent much of the last couple months warning of the danger in Illinois of HB 48, which would ban private handgun sales in the state. As I keep saying (to the point of tedium, no doubt), this has been the number one priority of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby in Illinois.

Starting the middle of this past week, I got to shift from warning of that danger, to gloating over the bill's ignominious defeat.

The question now, though, is what will they come after next? Well, actually, we know what they came after next--the day after HB 48 went down in flames, HB 179, mandating "safe-storage," made its own smoking crater right next to the wreckage of HB 48.

OK--but they're still not going to give up--they never do. So what's the next threat? HB 180 would require that all dealers whose inventory includes handguns, and all gunsmiths who work on handguns, acquire state licenses, in addition to the federal license. This bill would be a nightmare, and would actually allow the state to shut down all handgun retail, by simply refusing to issue the licenses (which they can do for any reason they wish, or for no reason at all).

HB 180 has gathered a lot of co-sponsors, but it's so draconian that I think we can beat it--if they couldn't pass HB 48, I don't see how they can pass HB 180.

I think the next goal is HB 845--a "lost or stolen" reporting requirement. I've railed against such legislation often enough in the past that I'm not going to rehash the arguments here--suffice it to say that if such a law passes, all my guns are suddenly going to be "lost."

Still, it's something that sounds "reasonable" to the uninitiated, so its passage is considered doable--there have even been concerted efforts to pass similar legislation in Pennsylvania (a rather more gun-friendly environment than Illinois). Apparently, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV) thinks "lost or stolen" is the place to make their next push. At their site, you'll see that both "Universal Background Checks" and "Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms" are listed as being "priority" legislation.

Now, though, the "Universal Background Checks" legislation is off the table (unless it comes back as an amendment, or as part of a senate bill, but since we beat it once, we can presumably do it again), so "Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms" would seem to be alone. The interesting thing is that according to Google Cache, as of less than a week ago, the background checks bill was their only "priority."



In other words, when their only priority legislation was defeated, they suddenly discovered another priority.

Also from ICPGV:

WHAT'S NEW

3/27/09 – Urgent: We Need Your Help to Stop Illegal Gun Trafficking

Many guns used in crimes can be sourced to illegal sales of firearms that were stolen from or lost by a lawful owner. One important way to disrupt this channel of firearms entering the illegal market is to require that a person report the loss or theft of their firearms. Reporting gives law enforcement the tools to identify individuals engaging in, furthering and profiting from such trade and distribution, while making gun trafficking more difficult for criminals.

We urge you to take the time to call or email your state Representative and urge him or her to support HB 845 (Acevedo), which would require FOID card holders to report the loss or theft of their handguns to local law enforcement agencies within 72 hours after discovering the loss or theft.

In the wild, predators attempt to identify the most vulnerable prey--that which can be taken with the greatest chance of success, the least expenditure of energy, and the least risk of injury to the predator. Those who would destroy our rights are simply another kind of predator--one that preys on liberties, rather than herbivores. They seem to have identified "lost or stolen" legislation as their next best chance of getting a meal, because they think we won't fight it with everything we have.

Let's send 'em away disappointed and hungry.

Illinois State Representative LaShawn K. Ford tries to hold the Bill of Rights hostage to his socialist agenda

Just short of two weeks ago, Illinois gun rights activists fought off the latest onslaught from the citizen disarmament crowd. The anti-gun extremists made their move on April 16th--anniversary of the Virginia Tech killings (anyone who thinks that's a coincidence would perhaps be interested in a sweet deal on a pair of breeding mules); they bused Chicago aldermen down to Springfield; and two nights previously, held a "forum" at the NIU campus (although that ended up not going so well for them).

The focus of their efforts? No secret about that (or check the top two priorities listed on the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website)--HB 758, to ban private sales of handguns, and SB 1007, to ban magazines with a capacity of eleven or more rounds.

Just as predicted, HB 758 came up for a vote, and thanks in no small part to the grassroots efforts of concerned, civic-minded Illinois gun owners, was narrowly defeated (58 to 58, with 60 votes needed to pass). With the defeat of HB 758, they didn't even try to pass the still more onerous laws they had hoped for.

The failure of the background check legislation led Rep. Eddie Acevedo (D-Chicago), who is pushing a ban on assault weapons, and supporters of other Daley-backed gun-control bills to put off further votes Wednesday.

I'm not writing this to gloat (well--maybe a little), and I certainly don't want my fellow Illinois gun rights activists to become complacent--the recent bloody weekend in Chicago (even by Chicago's standards) has undoubtedly re-energized the gun prohibitionists.

No--the point to which I am slowly getting pertains to the statements Illinois State Representative LaShawn K. Ford made on the House floor during the debate over HB 758. The relevant portion, about 3 minutes long, can be heard here (mp3 format)--it starts with Ford asking the bill's sponsor, Rep. Harry Osterman, some questions, Osterman answering those questions, and Ford explaining why he supported the bill.

I have done my best to directly quote the part of Ford's speech that really offends me--I'm no transcriptionist, but I can promise that any inaccuracies are both accidental and incidental:

And I think that this legislation--I think everyone should enjoy what the Constitution says, but I think we all should join in. If, right now, we have people voting against, um, opportunities for ex-offenders to have the opportunity to go to work, and we know that gun violence is--is prevalent in communities that's been subject to, um, people not being able to go to work. So, as much as I would like to share the views of the other side, at this point, I have no choice but to vote "yes" for your legislation, because right now, we're voting against legislation to improve schools in my district. We're voting against funding going back to the non-for-profit agencies, and people are being killed every day. Unfortunately, I cannot support the fact that people think they should have their Second Amendment right respected at this time, but I look forward to the time when I can say that people should enjoy their Second Amendment right, but until then, I ask that everyone vote "yes," so that we can, um, enjoy what the Constitution says: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Never mind the rather incoherent, rambling nature of his speech. Never mind the grammatical lapses. Hell--never mind even the fact that he isn't even bright enough to know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution--all that is beside the point. The point is that he seems to know that the Second Amendment prohibits restrictive gun laws like HB 758, but since other legislators have refused to support legislation he wants, he feels justified in supporting legislation that he knows to be unconstitutional. That makes him no better than an extortionist--"give me what I want, or I'll violate your rights--the Constitution be damned."

Hell--I don't know if even my "Second Amendment Violation Amnesty Act" would be enough to protect him.

More citizen disarmament muscle flexing in Illinois

It seems that the Illinois Politburo legislature is planning another push to ban so-called "assault weapons" next week. The relevant portion of the article is at the very bottom, under "Guns."

The House last week killed a bill restricting handgun purchases to one per month. A bill to ban assault weapons will be called for a vote this week, said sponsor Rep. Edward Acevedo, D-Chicago.

The bill referred to here is almost certainly HB 4357, although it could alternatively be HB 873, which was also introduced by Acevedo. I don't know that it matters, as the language of the two bills seems identical--identically obscene. Here's the synopsis:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately.

"Assault weapons," .50 caliber rifles (and ammo), and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (standard capacity magazines)--ambitious, aren't we, Representative Edward "Only One" Acevedo? Note that although the bill has a "grandfather clause," presumably to blunt opposition over the fact that people will be forced to surrender their legally purchased and owned firearms and accessories, it's somewhat meaningless. I don't keep the receipts for the guns and magazines I buy--how am I suppose to prove my ownership to the police? Besides, there is no such clause for the .50 caliber ammunition (which, being a consumable item, wouldn't mean much, anyway)--so you can keep your .50 caliber rifle, but now it's just an awkward, very expensive club.

It's quite possible that this talk of a vote next week is mere posturing--intended as a bargaining chip (some bargain!) to use on legislators who are sitting on the fence with regard to what I still think are their real priorities this session (HB 758--background checks for all private sales; and/or SB 1007--standard capacity magazine ban): "If you won't stand with us to get deadly assault weapons off our streets, then at least stand up for reasonable gun-control, like universal background checks and banning large capacity clips." That's a favorite tactic.

By the way, the article from the first link had a bit more about guns:

Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria, is sponsoring a bill to allow Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons. It is stuck in the House Rules Committee, where nothing will happen to it unless Madigan agrees.

“I know better than to run around chasing my tail,” Schock said.

Well, Aaron, it's true that Madigan has your HB 4544 bottled up in committee, but how about putting some muscle behind HB 1304, since that one isn't stuck in Rules.

'Only One' vs. 'Only One'

Illinois State Representative (and Chicago Police Officer) Edward Acevedo suffered a bit of a setback recently when his lawsuit against fellow Chicago Police Officer Dennis Canterbury was soundly defeated--for the second time (at least it made it to the jury this time--the first time, the judge threw it out before Canterbury had even finished presenting his defense).

The lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred in 2001. After a fund-raiser, Acevedo's legislative assistant, Sylvia Idrovo, discovered that her car had been impounded (for reasons I have been unable to discover). Acevedo drove her to the impound lot, bringing along fellow officer Aaron del Valle. Del Valle, by the way, now has legal problems of his own, related to charges of illegal city hiring practices in which he was allegedly involved (that's odd--you mean corruption is illegal in Chicago?), in connection to his work with the Hispanic Democratic Organization (part of Mayor Daley's political machine--Acevedo also has connections to the HDO).

The "plan" (such as it was) apparently was to use the clout of the two "Only Ones" (one of whom was doubly privileged, by virtue of being both a police officer and a state representative) to bully the impound lot into releasing the car without Idrovo having to pay the fees that those of us without "Only One" backing would be charged.

Things got ugly when the impound lot supervisor failed, somehow, to be awed by Acevedo's and del Valle's presence, and refused to release the vehicle.

Acevedo did allegedly try to persuade an auto pound supervisor to release the car.

"Who the f--- do you think you are, you no good motherf-----! Don't you know who I am?" Acevedo told the supervisor, according to police reports.

Such modesty, and one would think that the supervisor would be happy to grant such a polite request. Alas, he instead called the police (er . . . the other police, I guess), bringing Officer Canterbury to the scene. Acevedo's and Canterbury's accounts of what happened next are, naturally, quite different. Whether Canterbury punched Acevedo for no reason (as claimed by Acevedo), or Acevedo charged Canterbury, who then pushed him back, causing a highly inebriated Acevedo to lose his balance (Canterbury's version of events), the end result was that Acevedo ended up with his backside on the ground.

By now, it was necessary to bring in still more law enforcement, so Police Sergeant Donald Rose appeared on the scene.

Rose described Acevedo as "belligerent, loud, hostile" because he was insistent and mouthing off to Rose, who is a superior officer to Acevedo, a patrolman.

"Besides smelling alcoholic beverage, I'm figuring this guy is just not being reasonable, he's not thinking, which made me think that that's another reason why this guy has been drinking, because you don't mouth off to a higher rank," Rose said.

Making friends all over the place, aren't you, Eddy (who is also quoted as having said to one of the officers, "You don't tell me what to do, I tell you what to do!")? Edward clearly needs to work on his professional courtesy.

Acevedo was charged with misdemeanor assault, although that charge was later dropped, when Canterbury did not show up for court (he claims he was never notified of the court date). Interestingly, Acevedo was never charged for drunk driving, despite having driven to the lot, and despite registering a blood alcohol level of .06% in a Breathalyzer test administered six hours after the confrontation, which would indicate that at the time of the incident, his blood alcohol level had been around .17%, or more than twice the legal limit for driving--it's good to be an "Only One," isn't it? Acevedo, by the way, denies he was intoxicated (he acknowledges drinking beer at the fund raiser, although the number of beers he admits to having consumed varies, apparently). Ah--don't you just love integrity in politics?

I can afford to be amused by all this, because I live in a part of the state far away from Chicago (thankfully). Chicago tax payers, on the other hand, will probably have more trouble seeing the humor in the situation, as the first lawsuit (and subsequent appeal) cost them more than $73,000, and the second is expected to cost "in the mid-five figures" (despite the city winning both times). By the way, Acevedo has not yet exhausted the appeals process, so the city's (and taxpayers') legal bills might not be done growing (it is not yet known whether or not he will appeal again).

So far, this story has been only quite marginally related to gun rights--but there is a connection. Making this particularly sweet is Acevedo's legislative history of outright hostility to Illinois gun owners. He, in fact, was the author last year of HB 2414, to ban so-called "assault weapons," .50 caliber rifles (and .50 caliber ammunition), and eleven round (and larger) magazines. This is how he justified his attack on the Constitution:

"The tragic events in Englewood sadly demonstrate that assault weapons have no place in our community," Acevedo said. "My heart goes out to the victims and their families. We cannot let their suffering be in vain. As a police officer, I can confirm that these are dangerous weapons, used only for acts of terrorism and violence. We must stand united against the gangs and criminals who use them to wreak havoc in our neighborhoods and terrorize children and families."

Ah--the irony of a civil rights lawsuit being filed by this aspiring tyrant.

Fighting the Kotowski/Millner Civilian Disarmament Act

By the way, I should have mentioned that what we need to do now is flood the House Executive Committee's (that's where SB 1007 is at the moment) phone lines with calls pushing for opposition to SB 1007.

Chairperson : Daniel J. Burke (217) 782-1117

Vice-Chairperson : Joseph M. Lyons (217) 782-8400

Republican Spokesperson : Dan Brady (217) 782-1118

Edward J. Acevedo (217) 782-2855

Maria Antonia Berrios (217) 558-1032

Bob Biggins (217) 782-6578

Richard T. Bradley (217) 782-8117

Brent Hassert (217) 782-4179

James H. Meyer (217) 782-8028

Robert S. Molaro (217) 782-5280

Robert Rita (217) 558-1000

Angelo Saviano (217) 782-3374

Arthur L. Turner (217) 782-8116