Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Illinois House Democrats form new arrivals working group
Posted in:
* HB4462 was filed by Rep. Lance Yednock yesterday…
Amends the Minors Requiring Authoritative Intervention Article of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Provides that no minor shall be sheltered in a temporary living arrangement for more than 48 hours (rather than 21 business days.)
* HB4453 from Rep. Anthony DeLuca…
Amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Provides that if the minor (1) has previously been placed on probation for an offense that involves the possession or discharge of a firearm not causing any injury; and (2) is convicted of a subsequent offense involving the possession or discharge of a firearm not causing any injury, then the court shall require the minor to participate in social service programs offered through juvenile probation and comply with referral recommendations for no less than 3 months. Provides that if the minor does not complete the referral recommendations, the court shall commit the minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice to complete the recommended services. Provides that a minor convicted of a subsequent offense involving the use of a firearm causing serious injury, great bodily harm, or death shall be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice with the Department providing services, including, but not limited to, education, mental health services, drug treatment, and mentoring. Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Reenacts the provisions of the Code that were repealed on January 1, 2024 concerning sentencing guidelines for individuals with prior felony firearm-related or other specified convictions. Deletes the repeal of those provisions. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.
* Sen. Celina Villanueva filed SB2756…
Amends the Liquor Control Act of 1934. Creates a distiller showcase permit and a class 3 craft distiller license. Provides that a class 3 craft distiller license, which may be issued to a distiller or a non-resident dealer, shall allow the manufacture of no more than 100,000 gallons of spirits per year and shall allow the sale of no more than 5,000 gallons of spirits in the aggregate from the class 3 craft distiller’s in-state or out-of-state class 3 craft distillery premises to retail licensees, class 3 brewers, and class 3 craft distillers as long as the class 3 craft distiller licensee meets certain requirements. Authorizes a class 3 craft distiller to self-distribute subject to certain requirements and limitations. Provides that a spirits showcase permit shall allow an Illinois-licensed distributor to transfer a portion of its spirits inventory from its licensed premises to the premises specified in the spirits showcase permit license, and, in the case of a class 3 craft distiller, transfer only spirits the class 3 craft distiller manufactures from its licensed premises to the premises specified in the spirits showcase permit license; and to sell or offer for sale at retail, only in the premises specified in the spirits showcase permit license, the transferred or delivered spirits for on or off premises consumption, but not for resale in any form and to sell to non-licensees not more than 156 fluid ounces of spirits per person. Provides that a distilling pub license shall allow the licensee to manufacture up to 10,000 gallons (instead of 5,000 gallons) of spirits per year on the premises specified in the license.
* HB4469 from Rep. Maura Hirschauer…
Amends the Firearms Restraining Order Act to include in the definition of “petitioner” an intimate partner. Amends the Protective Orders Article of the Code of Criminal Procedures of 1963 and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. Provides that, if the petitioner seeks a court order prohibiting the respondent from possessing firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm parts that could be assembled to make an operable firearm, the court shall immediately issue a search warrant directing seizure of firearms at the time an ex parte or final order of protection is issued, if the court finds, based upon sworn testimony, that: (1) probable cause exists that the respondent possesses firearms, ammunition, or firearm parts that could be assembled to make an operable firearm; (2) probable cause exists to believe that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to the petitioner or child and that the danger is imminent and present; and (3) probable cause exists that firearms, ammunition, or firearm parts that could be assembled to make an operable firearm are located at the residence, vehicle, or other property of the respondent. Provides that a finding of probable cause for a warrant upon oral testimony may be based on the same kind of evidence as is sufficient for a warrant upon affidavit. Effective immediately.
* Rep. Anna Moeller filed HB4467…
Amends the Mobile Home Park Act. Provides that operating a mobile home park without a current license shall result in a fine of $10 per day per site. Provides that licenses issued under the Act are nontransferable. Provides that if a mobile home park is sold, the application for a new license shall be mailed to the Department of Public Health and postmarked no later than 10 days after the date of sale. Provides that delinquent licensing fees and reinspection fees of the prior owner or owners are to be paid by the new owner before a license is issued. Requires the current name, address, email address, and telephone number of the licensee and mobile home park manager to be displayed at all times on the mobile home park property in a location visible to the public and protected from weather. Requires the Department to conduct an annual inspection of each mobile home park. Provides that if violations are documented during the annual inspection and the Department is required to reinspect the mobile home park to ensure the violations have been corrected, the Department, at its discretion, may charge a reinspection fee of $300 per site visit due at the time of license renewal. Provides that licensing fees and reinspection fees are nonrefundable. Provides that a mobile home park whose license has been voided, suspended, denied or revoked may be relicensed once the park is in substantial compliance, all delinquent licensing fees are paid, all reinspection fees are paid, and the mobile home park submits an application and application fee. Increases fees to be paid for the annual mobile home park license, individual mobile home spaces, and late charges.
* HB4450 from Rep. Jackie Haas…
Amends the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Schedules Xylazine as a Schedule III controlled substance.
Rep. Jaime Andrade filed HB4451…
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Establishes that a municipality that operates an automated speed enforcement system shall set aside 10% of the net proceeds from each system that generates more than $500,000 in revenue for the respective school district or park district in which the automated speed enforcement system is located. Provides that the set aside proceeds may be allocated for any purpose designated by the school district or park district. Set forth home rule provisions.
* SB2763 from Sen. Laura Ellman…
Creates the Responsible Outdoor Lighting Control Act. Restricts State money from being used to install or replace permanent outdoor lighting units unless certain conditions are met. Provides that specified lighting units that were installed prior to the effective date of the Act and that produce light pollution need not be replaced until the end of the life of the lamp. Provides that these requirements apply to all lighting on or in all newly constructed, renovated, and retrofitted State-owned, State-supported, State-funded, or State-related rights-of-way, roadways and sidewalks, spaces, facilities, properties, nonhabitable structures, monuments, and flagpoles. Sets forth exemptions. Effective January 1, 2025.
* Rep. Mary Gill filed HB4452 yesterday…
Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Allows a grandparent to file a petition seeking visitation if there has been a complete denial of visitation, subject to specified criteria.
…Adding… PhRMA regarding Illinois House Bill 4472, filed today, to establish a prescription drug affordability board (PDAB)…
“Lawmakers seeking to lower prescription drug costs should know government price setting doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Legislation that fails to address health insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers makes lowering costs for Illinois patients impossible. Other states have spent millions of dollars establishing prescription drug affordability boards, but they have yet to save patients one cent at the pharmacy counter.” – Stami Williams, spokeswoman at PhRMA.
For additional context, please see:
* PhRMA’s background document on the problems with PDABs.
* PhRMA’s resource page on how states can help patients pay less for their medicines: https://phrma.org/States
* Rep. Nabeela Syed filed HB4472…
Creates the Health Care Availability and Access Board Act. Establishes the Health Care Availability and Access Board to protect State residents, State and local governments, commercial health plans, health care providers, pharmacies licensed in the State, and other stakeholders within the health care system from the high costs of prescription drug products. Contains provisions concerning Board membership and terms; staff for the Board; Board meetings; circumstances under which Board members must recuse themselves; and other matters. Provides that the Board shall perform the following actions in open session: (i) deliberations on whether to subject a prescription drug product to a cost review; and (ii) any vote on whether to impose an upper payment limit on purchases, payments, and payor reimbursements of prescription drug products in the State. Permits the Board to adopt rules to implement the Act and to enter into a contract with a qualified, independent third party for any service necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Board. Creates the Health Care Availability and Access Stakeholder Council to provide stakeholder input to assist the Board in making decisions as required by the Act. Contains provisions concerning Council membership, member terms, and other matters. Provides that the Board shall adopt the federal Medicare Maximum Fair Price as the upper payment limit for a prescription drug product intended for use by individuals in the State. Requires the Attorney General to enforce the Act. Effective 180 days after becoming law.
posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 8:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Illinois House Democrats form new arrivals working group
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I had not heard of Xylazine but I guess it is often mixed in with fentanyl and is dangerous in that combination.
It is also used as and was originally a veterinary tranquilizer. Can a schedule 3 drug still be used by veterinarians on animals?
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 9:25 am
I believe the answer is yes. It would be no different from Ketamine, Ace and other such equine and bovine meds.
Comment by flea Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 9:40 am
I’m not a really big fan of giving grandparents the right to file for visitation. I have a bit of experience with this and if I as the parent have made the decision to not allow my kid to see their grandparent for whatever reason that should be the end of the conversation. It’s not their kid.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 10:26 am
“the definition of “petitioner” an intimate partner”
What could possibly go wrong - I’m sure no jilted intimate partner would ever file an unwarranted firearms restraining order.. the bill originally defined family
“a family member of the respondent as defined in
this Act “
I didn’t see such a definition for intimate partner, I guess they’lll just figure that out.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 10:44 am
Agree with Demoralized. For many years it was the law that fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their children. There has been some erosion of this doctrine, IMO to the detriment of children and their stability.
Comment by Bull Durham Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 11:01 am
Some grandparents are manipulative and damaging to the grandkids. I don’t think it is right for them to have legal rights in visitation. My in-laws are not the nicest people and have done things that have caused me to restrict their access to my kids. The parents should be able to decide and control the access accordingly.
Comment by Jibba Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 11:19 am
On the grandparent’s rights bill, doesn’t look like it really changes much besides allowing the grandparents to petition. Regardless, parents still have the ultimate right and grandparent would have to prove the parent is unfit. Which is already the case with any petitioner? I could be wrong
See language below:
1 (B) In the case of grandparent visitation, if there
2 has been a complete denial of all visitation, a
3 petitioning grandparent may be granted visitation if the
4 petitioner can show that visitation is beneficial to the
5 child’s mental, physical, or emotional health. Visitation
6 shall not be granted if a fit parent reasonably believes
7 that allowing visitation would cause the child mental,
8 physical, or emotional harm.
Comment by politico Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 11:42 am
You don’t have to be married to someone to experience domestic violence from them. I’m not a lawyer, but I do unfortunately have personal familiarity with filing of orders of protections against a former partner. “Intimate partner” is defined on the Order of Protection forms as a spouse or a partner in a dating relationship, which you have to demonstrate in court was the actual relationship. Getting an OP is not as simple as just showing up and saying “this person did bad”, you have to make a case to a judge and have evidence to back it up, either through testimony or solid documentation.
Right now on the , you can request (under section 14.5) that the respondent be ordered to turn over their guns. This appears to be putting teeth behind it and making sure that the order is actually followed instead of trusting the abuser to just hand over their firearms voluntarily.
But I guess let’s be more worried about someone maybe possibly losing access to their guns for a time than the very real victims of domestic violence?
Comment by Leap Day William Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 11:58 am
===What could possibly go wrong - I’m sure no jilted intimate partner would ever file an unwarranted firearms restraining order===
Somebody’s nervous.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 11:59 am
Yeah, states with “grandparents’ rights” laws that allow them to file for visitation are often weaponized into vexatious litigation against the parent NOT because the grandparent legitimately considers them a bad parent, but because the grandparent is angry about their adult child’s political leanings or religious affiliation, or because the parent is low-contact or no-contact with the grandparent due to a history of abuse, and family court litigation is a very popular way for abusive people to attempt to continue to control their victims.
There are cases of grandparents filing repeatedly, every single year, with new “evidence” they should be awarded visitation. The goal is to harass their adult children into rejoining a particular church, or leaving one, or to run out the parents’ money so that they quit fighting visitation.
Another very common cause of grandparents’ rights filings is that a grandchild comes out as gay and the grandparent would like to attempt to force the child to pretend to be straight.
I’d want to see a lot of very specific guard rails around this.
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 12:14 pm
Illinois courts have ruled several times that oral warrants are not permitted. A quick Lexis check would reveal that fact. Food for thought, how does one attack a warrant that’s not written? The caselaw on the language of affidavits and what amounts to PC is legion. There’s a reason this proposed law does not cite or reference the search warrant statute. This is a very slippery slope.
Comment by Nope. Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 12:35 pm
=== establish a prescription drug affordability board (PDAB) ===
Establishing PDAB here is such a bad idea. There are some real tremendous treatments out there that are being developed by pharmaceutical companies that could provide life changing results. To get there, these companies spend decades developing, researching, going through the approval process through FDA, etc. This type of development costs a lot of money. If these companies are going to be limited by some artificial prices determined by bureaucrats, it may prevent them from recouping this money and create a disincentive to further development.
We need to get aggressive with the insurance companies - not those that are developing the drugs and treatments that can cure the diseases that kill us or negatively impact our quality of life.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 2:25 pm
===This type of development costs a lot of money. If these companies are going to be limited by some artificial prices determined by bureaucrats, it may prevent them from recouping this money and create a disincentive to further development. ===
That would be more persuasive if drug companies’ marketing budgets weren’t typically 2x as large as their R&D budgets, and if so many lifesaving drugs weren’t developed with underlying US government grants funded by taxpayers and then privatized into a patented cash cow.
Also be more persuasive if we didn’t see our last governor buy both patents on inexpensive life-saving medication that prevents fetal loss related to certain defects that used to be $12/dose and then jack up the price on it to $800/dose because it was it was now a monopoly drug with no competition and nobody’s going to say “I’m not paying $800 to save my child’s life.”
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 2:37 pm
=== That would be more persuasive if drug companies’ marketing budgets weren’t typically 2x as large as their R&D budgets, and if so many lifesaving drugs weren’t developed with underlying US government grants funded by taxpayers and then privatized into a patented cash cow. ===
Don’t lump all companies into the same boat. If you think that there is a specific issue relating to a specific drug, have a hearing on it and haul the companies in to defend their work. But to have government appointed bureaucrats determining what the price should be for a drug or treatment that can save or change someone’s life is dangerous. Think about rare diseases in particular.
If you are concerned with government grants, you might ask yourself, if the government has the money to fund all pharmaceutical research and development itself, why not do all the development itself? Because it can’t. We need these companies to develop these drugs. The government should focus on insurance coverage for these treatments, not making it cost prohibitive to develop the drug in the first place.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 2:46 pm
==This is a very slippery slope.==
Only with people like you
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 17, 24 @ 3:43 pm