Posted 18 May 2016 - 08:44 AM

I listened to the entire Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. I think we should have

pushed harder on these issues:

1) No grandfather provision for existing FFL's with less than 5 year/100 hour requirement.

There is a grandfather provision on location requirements. There is a grandfather provision

for the examination requirements.

2) The "preemption" of the Concealed Carry Law and the FOID Card Law will be

eliminated. This is a big deal because it allows for all of the county and municipal

mischief that has existed to return by local ordinances. It is also fertile ground for

nitwits like ARS to agitate.

3) How is the "8 gun" threshold to be reconciled with the "trade or business" purpose

required for the FFL and the 5 year/100 hour provision? You will not receive an FFL

merely because you desire to sell or transfer 8 or more guns, such as a person named

executor of an estate. However, you would be required to obtain an Illinois license, which

without the FFL, would be almost useless. It would also be impossible to qualify for

the Illinois license examination and application process without having met the 5 year/

100 hour threshold for eligibility at the time of 8th gun sale. This just seems unworkable.

There are other problems with this Bill and I am sure there will be many more after the

rules are finally written. But I just don't see how the Bill is could even begin to be implemented

with these three unresolved issues.