BREAKING: Illinois Firearms Ban Bill Dies in Committee, Not on Agenda for Lame Duck Session

TTAG has just learned from Todd Vandermyde, legislative guy for the NRA, that the Illinois gun ban bill has died in committee. Specifically, that the chairman for the committee refused to bring the bill to vote. Here’s his email:

The chair annouced they would not be calling the gun ban for a vote

Back story is they were short on votes and still tinkering with language, amidst the uprising of gun owners.

Expect the bill to be resurrected if and when the Democrats are able to swing the votes in their favor. The official statement from the Democratic committee chairman, Elaine Nekritz:

It is clear that we will need bipartisan support in order to take floor votes on gun safety and marriage equality this week. We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future. The executive committee has been delayed, but we still intend to hold a hearing on marriage equality shortly.

It was also announced that similar bills would not be on the agenda for the rest of the lame duck session. Unfortunately, since the next assembly is even more Democrat than before, that might not be such a good thing.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

66 Responses to BREAKING: Illinois Firearms Ban Bill Dies in Committee, Not on Agenda for Lame Duck Session

  1. avatarrangered says:

    Since they were counting on lame duck legislators to ram this thru before their terms were over, Can anyone advise us when the term is officially up?

    Apparently they thought their best shot-if not only shot-was with the retiring legislators…that is good news isn’t it? Hopefully? Please will someone give us some good news?

  2. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Is this the same thing that happened the last time they stalled? Where does it go from here? Sorry, Im still not very familliar with law making.

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      yes, this got stalled in the House. Last week, two similar bills got stalled in the Senate. If they can get one side of the house to vote favorably, then that puts pressure on the other side to deal or vote favorably. this is a good thing since if it dies and they have to have a carry bill by early June, now everyone can sit down and discuss like adults (sarcasm off).

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Thanks for the response Dirk. I guess it would bennefit me to take a couple of US Law classes. Pretty much my only source of info is from this damn smart phone but even then Im cautious about trusting information.

  3. avatarCapt. Howdy says:

    Political whack-a-mole. Keep smacking them back down.

  4. avatarabe says:

    Does this mean good news for us in Illinois , I know its nowhere to being over but can we just breath a little now Or?

  5. avatarBud says:

    It’s not over, there are still two FOID bills in the executive Committee with a Hearing at 4PM CST

    To learn what is happening as it happens, join us at Illinois Carry and help us fight the tyranny of the Chicago machine

  6. avatarOkieRim says:

    Based on wiki, the numbers of dem vs. repub will get even worse in 2013 for Ill, could be a tough run coming for the pro-2A crowd.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Illinois

    • avatarRobert M says:

      Yes but the question is how many of Democrats are in districts were they will vote them out of office is they vote for Gun laws. There will generally be a few delegates who loss there job over it. That is why they are tiring to pass it with people who aren’t returning they are tiring to protect those who might lose if they vote for this crap. There are some Democrats who support 2A and would vote for anyone else if there delegate votes the wrong way on 2A.

      Thanks
      Robert

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Since we call ,Randy on it all the time, I feel I have to be consistent. Therefore:

        It’s 2013, and this is the internet. It’s not necessary to sign every comment. Your name (and your picture?) are right there above every comment you leave. It’s just wasted screen real estate and wasted time and makes you look kinda silly.

        (And what are you always thanking us for? Listening? Our attention? I’m confused.)

        • avatarJacknine says:

          He might simply be polite and a bit formal, nothing wrong with that.

          He might even open the door for you, based on your picture.

          All in good fun, OK?

        • avatarRandy says:

          Matt, Robert is just being polite. Nothing wrong with signing off with his name or for “thanking” us for allowing his comment. From reading the other comments, there is a lot of wasted screen real estate from the same ideology being regurgitated over and over. And it doesn’t look silly. To a gentleman or a lady, politeness is never out of style. And it goes back to one of the great things about our country. We have the right to say what we want, in the way that we want. Kinda like that 2nd Amendment thing. It’s important that we continue to allow it.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Based on my picture, I think even Aharon would open the door for me.

        • avatarblinkypete says:

          You’re right about that Matt. You’re just beautiful!

        • avatarHowdy says:

          How about being a bit more gracious? He offends no one and he did nothing wrong. Don’t be the guy that runs off support or honest questions or possible contributions.

          Thanks,
          Howdy

    • avatarmongo says:

      hey…just lie to me and tell me its gonna be better!

  7. avatarLance says:

    Think this is really good news. Yes we must keep the pressure till the session is over! But give yourself 10 minutes today to say thank you to god and to the Reps and Senators that killed Chicago’s BIG BIG BIG gun ban plan.

    • avatarmongo says:

      im gonna take that 10 minutes and blast away at a paper target!!!

      • avatarLance says:

        Some say they are waiting for next new session. But it may not go down like that. The Gov was pushing so hard for this session for a reason. maybe shows that there are too many pro-gun Dems in the news session that a massive AWB will not make it.

        • avatarMike in NC says:

          The next session’s firearms legislation will likely be focused on creating the most restrictive concealed carry law they think they can get away with before the court-imposed 180 day limit.

        • avatarLance says:

          Very true AWB may be over so they find other way to tick off gun owners.

  8. avatarThomas Paine says:

    this is great news. Hopefully it forewarns the ilk at the federal level. Keep up the good work!

  9. avatarmongo says:

    whoa! is there a god after all?

  10. avatarSammy says:

    Not time to celebrate. This “war” like all others will be fought by the purses of the opposing points of view. I could have bought 5 30 round Colt magazines from CTD for what I gave to pro 2nd groups just in the past 6 weeks (hooray for me/sarcasm). We can’t let up. Barry is just beginning to build steam to end run pro gun groups thus, once again, ignoring the will of the people. We’re all going to pay for this re election in many ways. My friend makes 28,500.00 P/Y and her taxes went up 3.5%.

    And just for fun look up H.J. 15.

    • avatarJPD says:

      Exactly how did your friends taxes go up? If you mean federal withholding, not true. What DID happen is the 2% social security withholding deduction we received two years ago expired. So, in effect, we are where we were two years ago.

      I do not recall any complaining when we all got a few dollars extra back then.

      Now, if you recall, the deduction in our SS tax rate was part of a package to put more money in the pocket of consumers to help the economy meltdown in 2008.

      Keep in mind, our POTUS was fighting to increase the tax burden on those making $200,000 and couples at $250,000. The Republicans pushed through $400,000. Since the Republicans representatives care more about the millionaires, not us. Why? Because THEY and their a**hole buddies are all millionaires, not us. Oh yeah, and the Dems care about nobody……we are screwed no matter what.

      Now, the big question……..are you making $200, 000 a year? Or $400,00? If not, why on Earth are you not after your Republican lawmakers to deal with us fairly? Oh yeah, you fell for the same bull***t the Dems did on gun control.

      Do some homework people.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        I think your facts are incorrect. If you read the “deal”, taxes go up on people making over $400 ($450k for a couple) but their deductions are limited at $300/$350 respectively. Add in the additional 0.9% medicare tax for income over $250k plus the additional 3.8% tax on investment income for people making over $250k per year, and well, I don’t hate on people who make good money. They get screwed on taxes.

    • avatarmongo says:

      sorry bout your friend…and HJ 15…is not funny…no as in HELL NO for obummer!!!!

  11. avatartdiinva says:

    If they can’t get it done in Illinois then there is no possibilty on the national level.

    • avatarmongo says:

      the better not EVER,,,EVER get something like that bill done and passed in illinois,,,as much as illinois is an infectious state to others….NEVER will get a bill like that passed,,,

    • avatarJPD says:

      I sincerely hope so. I believe (without any hard evidence) that the pro gun effort in Illinois was so strong, the politicians backed down.

      Our ONLY recourse against politicians is that we may be able to knock them off the gravy train. Since their ONLY true, #1 concern is greed, we have a shot when we scare them enough.

    • avatarrangered says:

      Don’t be overconfident. Be ever vigilant. They are going to keep trying and trying and trying to ram one of these thru and then others will use that as justification for other laws elsewhere.

      And notice how the media has picked this as the cause d’jour. There has been a subtle and sometimes not so subtle shift in how gun owners are portrayed. Look how many times the map posted by the Long Island newspaper was compared to maps that showed registered sex offenders…..as if lawful gun owners were comparable to convicted deviants.

      So, again, don’t be overconfident. They are trying to create a Tsunami of legislative tricks, stories, maps and ginned up emotional appeals to do what they haven’t been able to do legally in the light of public scrutiny.

  12. avatarGreg Camp says:

    One bill to infringe on rights and one to expand recognition of rights? I’m for marriage equality and gun rights. It’s time to put more people in office who abide by the principle that if you’re not harming me, I should shut up about what you do.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Politically gay marriage and gun rights are linked but not in the way you think. Gay “rights” are a Progressive Project just like gun control. A society based on liberty doesn’t care what happens in bedroom but it also doesn’t have to convey its blessing nor pick up the tab for any medical issues.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Agreed.

      • avatarChristoff says:

        The complicated fact is that conservatives and gun owners don’t have a monopoly on liberty.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Well there are Libertarians but they have separated liberty from personal responsibility. For so-called Progressives, liberals or whatever you want to call them liberty ends at the bedroom door with mistakes paid for by the government out of someone elses pocket. I’ve got no issues with peoplet have non standard sexual behaviors, and I just don’t mean gay (you can use your imagination), but any bad consequences of those behavior should fall on the individual and not society. That is the difference between Conservatives and Libertarians and the others.

  13. avatarSanchanim says:

    I don’t know if it would need to be reintroduced if brought to the next state congress. Usually one would think there is a comment period, people need to be allowed to read the bill or what ever. It would then also need to pass committee yet again giving us more of a heads up.

  14. avatarRalph says:

    I’m in favor of guns. I’m in favor of gay rights. If the gay experience mirrors the hetero experience (and I’m sure it will), marriage will prove to be more of a loss than a gain. Gay people, if you think that not being allowed to marry was bad, you’re just gonna absolutely totally f^cking hate getting divorced. On the other hand, gun rights is the gift that keeps on giving. Gays with guns don’t get bashed.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      “Gays with guns don’t get bashed.”

      Well, they do, but only once.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      See, Ralph, here is yet another thing we agree on.

      And, as one of my gay friends said: “I may personally never want to get married, but I bet a TV show about gay divorce drama would get AMAZING ratings…”

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Ha I was thinking the same thing..
        Geez can we repeal all the wacky divorce laws in place now???
        Would have saved me a TON of grief and suffering..

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      I do not agree with gay marriage for religious reasons. However, I am very libertarian so I accept that as a society, it is very likely. My only issue is having an exception for religious organizations so a church does not get penalized if they refuse to marry a gay couple. Moreover, as I tell my (very) left leaning friends, they would pick up a ton of support on gay marriage if they learned to support national reciprocity on gun rights. We should be free to get married and have that marriage recognized in every state. that is the grand bargain struck many years ago and reflected in our constitution. Likewise, we also should be able to carry our weapon with us across state lines if we are recognized in a particular jurisdiction, just like we do for driving. I also made the same argument for people who advocate against voter ID laws, but then think it is perfectly ok that I have to pay for a ccw, take a class, get license, renew it, etc. When the two extremes of both sides realize that advocating for another improves their own chances, we may see some social and political change.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Dirk I totally respect your theological stand but, but I have to ask.
        Let’s say the LGBT community wanted a civil union, which is bound to the same rights as marriage under the law. this would mean that it would simply point to marriage laws, for guidance so one can’t change without the other.
        Would this be something people would be apposed to?
        I ask this because here in California it has been the center of gay rights in many aspects. I understand why you would fight for such things, but if you wanted backing for a federal law, wouldn’t a compromise be in order?
        I am not apposed to gay marraige, but I ask myself why sometimes… My concern is equal rights and treatment under the laws of our land. If some other legislation like a civil union achieved that, would that be good enough? At least from a “law” stand point everyone would be equal. If you want marriage to be legal then the LGBT community can fight that state by state. But at least they would have equal rights now..

        • avatarDirk Diggler says:

          I agree – I am fine with civil unions, but I understand that people argue it is not the same thing as “marriage”. The problem is there is a marriage by the state (ie, justice of the peace) and marriage through a religion. I don’t want the latter to be forced to recognize a marriage that doesn’t conform to their standards.

      • avatarRalph says:

        an exception for religious organizations so a church does not get penalized if they refuse to marry a gay couple.

        Churches already have that right. No church is required by law to marry anybody.

        If you don’t believe me, go with your wife to a synagogue and tell the rabbi that you’re a Baptist, but you really like the sound of Hebrew songs so could he please marry the two of you. Just be careful that you don’t get clocked with a bottle of sacramental vino.

        • avatarDirk Diggler says:

          Ralph, not entirely true. what if the couple really wants to get married at your facility b/c they like the view? Moreover, if you show up and say you are a married gay couple, and you want to join the church, I think it will be awkward in new member orientation. . . . . I hate Bloomberg with a passion, but I appreciate him for one thing, the compromise he cut in NY that got an exemption for religious groups.

  15. avatarRalph says:

    Illinois Firearms Ban Bill Dies in Committee

    Now if only the Democrats would do the same.

  16. GOOD! It’s a step in the right direction.

  17. avatarLarry says:

    Congratulations to ALL of you for keeping the pressure on our legislators. Each one of us has a responsibility to fight for our rights and EVERY single phone call, letter, email, fax, counts. Keep fighting and stay active. Thank you all for your efforts. Let’s take a moment this evening to savor “this” victory and prepare for the next battle. The war hasn’t yet been won. This was just a minor skirmish.

    Everyone get a good night sleep tonight. Well done folks.

  18. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Two Words: Thank God!!!

  19. avatarHowdy says:

    I have to wonder what else we’re missing that’s not gun related that they’re trying to sneak in. Illinois and D.C.

  20. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNXP2ndT9M

    I agree it died in committee, but . . . until the lame duck ends . . . it ain’t over

  21. avatarThomas says:

    I stand with you Dirk! I’m not against gay people… I’m against gay marriage.

  22. avatarChicagoist says:

    I have no problem with gays getting married for many reasons. The most notable being that Gay Divorce Court will be amazing.
    I do have an issue with them trying to ram it through ( No pun intended ) at the same time they want to ban guns. It’s basically saying; they can take 12 in the butt, but I can’t take 12 to the range…
    Not cool.

  23. avatarpat says:

    Keep smashing these dirtbags.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.