Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Chicago man arrested for threatening to “slaughter and murder any doctor, patient, or visitor” at city abortion clinic
Next Post: Why insurance companies don’t have to worry much about going after innocent policyholders who file claims
Posted in:
* Center Square…
The Illinois State Police have filed proposed rules for the Illinois Gun Dealer License Certification Act, but a mandatory 90-day review period means that gun dealers will still have to wait until all the details are finalized and the law is fully implemented before the cost of compliance is clear.
The Illinois State Rifle Association previously filed suit over the delays. The Illinois Attorney General’s office has a Monday deadline to file its response to that legal challenge.
The state licensing law Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed earlier this year requires federally licensed gun dealers in Illinois also get certification from the state. The proposed certification rules hadn’t been filed when the law went into effect last month.
As news broke that more than 1,200, or more than half of Illinois’ federally licensed dealers hadn’t applied for a state license, the Illinois State Rifle Association sued because the certification rules hadn’t been finalized.
Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly said those rules have now been filed.
“Anybody who has actually submitted their application, they’re still considered to be to be in compliance while the rulemaking process is going on,” Kelly said.
Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said that’s not good enough because it could still take months before the law is fully implemented.
“We are a long way from having these in effect and the law requires that the rules be in place before the law, not the other way around, so they’re still in violation,” Pearson said.
Pearson said the delay in finalizing the rules left gun dealers in the dark. Dealers don’t know how much things like surveillance systems suitable in the proposed rules will cost, among other issues, Pearson said.
Kelly said his agency has other aspects of the law to work on while the comment period continues. After the comment period, the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules will review the proposed rules.
“That process is moving forward,” Kelly said. “The legislature did provide for additional headcount for personnel to deal with gun dealer licensing for the Illinois State Police but that hiring process could take many months.” […]
The Attorney General’s office is expected to file a response the Illinois State Rifle Association’s lawsuit Monday in Springfield. Pearson said he expects a court hearing Sept. 5.
I’ve asked the AG’s office for a copy of its response to the lawsuit.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 2:21 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Chicago man arrested for threatening to “slaughter and murder any doctor, patient, or visitor” at city abortion clinic
Next Post: Why insurance companies don’t have to worry much about going after innocent policyholders who file claims
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As a candidate for Congress Kelly’s first proposal was to gut the First Amendment. It should surprise anyone that he has no respect for the Second.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 2:40 pm
More of this, please. Too much gun control focuses on the demand side, e.g. bans that are disproportionately wielded against people of color, and just drive up profits for seller. Focus more on the supply side, and make it as legally difficult as possible for gun sellers and manufacturers to operate as conservatives have made it for abortion clinics.
Comment by Quibbler Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 3:07 pm
==Dealers don’t know how much things like surveillance systems suitable in the proposed rules will cost==
Odd requirement to reference, since the law says those security systems aren’t required until 2021. I’m guessing a dealer will be able to figure out that cost by then.
Comment by FFS Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 3:32 pm
Downstate:
How is this an assualt on the 2nd Amendment? What specific proposals in the law are you against? Because most of them are pretty reasonable.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 3:33 pm
Quibbler. That is the slippery slope i am concerned with.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 4:07 pm
Quibbler @ 3:07 ==Focus more on the supply side, and make it as legally difficult as possible for gun sellers and manufacturers to operate as conservatives have made it for abortion clinics.==
A law like this doesn’t actually make it difficult for “gun sellers and manufacturers” to operate, it just makes it more expensive and thus gives the big guys a monopoly. It makes it prohibitively expensive for the majority of FFLs (who are individuals and not gun shops) to operate and makes it so that more and more person-to-person transfers and sales of guns will be completed outside the federal system and thus without a background check or waiting period.
Even so, making it “difficult” to operate legally doesn’t make illegal stuff go away. Do you think we should make it so more abortions occur in a safe, regulated setting or do you think people stop having abortions when they’re illegal and more difficult to access?
Comment by DualWieldedFederalism Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 4:13 pm
==Focus more on the supply side, and make it as legally difficult as possible for gun sellers and manufacturers to operate as conservatives have made it for abortion clinics.==
A law like this doesn’t actually make it difficult for “gun sellers and manufacturers” to operate, it just makes it more expensive and thus gives the big guys a monopoly. It makes it prohibitively expensive for the majority of FFLs (who are individuals and not gun shops) to operate and makes it so that more and more person-to-person transfers and sales of guns will be completed outside the federal system and thus without a background check or waiting period.
Even so, making it “difficult” to operate legally doesn’t make illegal stuff go away. Do you think we should make it so more abortions occur in a safe, regulated setting or do you think people stop having abortions when they’re illegal and more difficult to access?
Comment by DualWieldFederalism Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 4:17 pm
=== It makes it prohibitively expensive for the majority of FFLs (who are individuals and not gun shops) to operate ===
You’re framing this as a disagreement for some reason but this is exactly my point.
== gives the big guys a monopoly.==
That just means the legal regime needs to be more stringent. Tax these businesses within an inch of their lives. Start random, frequent, onerous spot inspections with lengthy shut-downs as the penalty for minor infractions. Stop allowing business to incorporate if their purpose is to sell guns. Etc. The sky’s the limit.
=== more and more person-to-person transfers and sales of guns will be completed outside the federal system and thus without a background check or waiting period. ===
Great reason to make background checks, waiting periods, and much more, part of the federal system.
== Do you think we should make it so more abortions occur in a safe, regulated setting or do you think people stop having abortions when they’re illegal and more difficult to access? ==
Setting aside that the conservative push for restrictions on abortion clinics is neither necessary nor intended to make abortions safer (they’re already very safe, especially compared to childbirth; safety is obviously a post-hoc rationalization for impeding access), drying up the gun supply won’t “make illegal stuff go away” overnight but it’s a necessary first step to getting a handle on our country’s singular gun violence problem.
Comment by Quibbler Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 9:12 pm
Quibbler @ 3:07 ==Focus more on the supply side, and make it as legally difficult as possible for gun sellers and manufacturers to operate as conservatives have made it for abortion clinics.==
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Comment by Shall not be infringed Monday, Aug 19, 19 @ 11:44 pm