Anti-gun IL lawmakers seeking power to effectively halt ALL (legal) gun buying?

Gun rights blogger Thirdpower notes today the Catch-22 that some legislators in Illinois (and elsewhere) would like to impose on firearms commerce:

When I've countered that while the same time the push is for all sales to go through FFL dealers, there is a simultaneous drive to reduce and eliminate as many firearm dealers as possible, I'm called paranoid.

He refers to the nexus of bills like HB 1296/SB 2026, to require all gun sales (the bills say they refer only to handgun sales, and not long guns--more on that in a bit) to go through licensed dealers, and bills like SB 1611, to require that gun dealers and gunsmiths (again, the bill ostensibly only applies to handgun dealers/gunsmiths, and again, more on that in a bit) be subjected to oppressive licensing by the state, in addition to having to deal with the BATFE's predations at the federal level (see the story of Red's Trading Post, for just one example of that).

We could talk about the fact that requiring sales to go through licensed dealers is particularly redundant in Illinois, since all gun purchasers are already required to have a Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) card, issued only after applicant's passage of a criminal background check.  We could also talk about the fact that even the mythical "gun show loophole" isn't in play here, because Illinois already requires all gun purchases at gun shows to go through licensed dealers.  Never mind that, though, especially given my strong agreement with National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea's rule of thumb, that "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."

Instead, let's look at how that legislative initiative would interact with the state licensing requirement.  First, let's see just how onerous SB 1611 is.  Back in 2007, I actually blogged about a bill, HB 796/SB1399, that looks on cursory inspection to be identical to this year's SB 1611.  That bill is definitely identical to its predecessor in these provisions, as I described them in 2007:

The requirements include (among other things) A) an extensive criminal background check--despite the fact that the federal license requires one; B) a $300 fee, for a three year license--the renewal fee is also $300; and c) fingerprinting, with an associated, undisclosed "fingerprinting fee," payable to (guess who) the Illinois State Police (this is beginning to look like a pretty nice source of income for the ISP, isn't it?).

That's just a much-abbreviated list of restrictions and requirements imposed by the legislation.  Much more insidious than those, though is this little tidbit hidden in the text of the bill (then and now):

Section 15. License application; fees; penalty.
(a) The Department may grant a handgun dealer license to an
applicant who satisfies the following requirements: . . .

Notice that "may grant" in there?  They don't have to grant the license (or renewal), even if the applicant meets every requirement.  The state could, if it chose, shut down every handgun dealer within three years, which would, if the private sale ban bill passes, shut down all legal commerce in handguns (and even handgun repair) in Illinois.  Since federal law requires that all handgun purchases take place within the purchaser's state, even crossing state lines would not be a (legal) alternative.

And now a word about the supposed limitation of the scope of both of these proposed laws, to handguns only.  That's something I blogged about just last year.  Rather than using the BATFE's definition of "handgun," they talk about "concealable firearms."  An observation:

What they don't define, however, is what, exactly, constitutes a "concealable firearm"--people have concealed AK-47's under trench coats or long robes. Come to think of it, back in my days as an artilleryman, we "concealed" entire howitzers under camouflage nets.

And in fact, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV) seemed to note that the "concealable firearm" category was wider than just handguns:

By requiring those who privately sell or transfer concealable firearms, including handguns, to do so at the business of a federally licensed firearm dealer . . .

As I said then:

If "concealable firearms" referred exclusively to handguns, there would be no need to say "including handguns." Illinois, by the way, bans civilian possession of short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns, even for those willing and able to jump through the federal hoops--so those are presumably not an intended target.

In Illinois, nearly all the impetus for ever more draconian "gun control" laws comes from the Chicago area.  Chicago, readers may remember, is rather fond of imposing Catch-22 roadblocks in the path of gun ownership.  This was perfectly illustrated in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's McDonald decision, overturning Chicago's handgun ban.  They replaced that law with one that required (among many other things) would-be handgun purchasers to receive hands-on instruction in handgun use, at a gun range, while simultaneously banning gun ranges in Chicago.

Requiring all handgun (and other gun?) sales to go through gun dealers, while simultaneously giving themselves the power to eliminate gun dealers, would be just in keeping with that proud Chicago tradition.

See also:

• The end of handgun sales in Illinois
  
• Did ICPGV tip Illinois politburo's legislature's hand on 'concealable firearms'?
  
• Gunfight in the Illinois legislature?
  
• Private Sales and Background Checks