Legislative Action Special Section                                                       

Holding his now-familiar "Repeal the F.O.I.D. card" placard, Tom Shafer has become a perennial fixture in the state Capitol. The Springfield man stages a generally one-man vigil against the firearm owners identification card (known as the "FOID" card), which is required for possession of a firearm or ammunition in Illinois.

The law creating the FOID card first took effect in July 1968 as a way to identify people not qualified to own firearms, such as those under age 21, people who are mentally retarded or who have been patients in a mental institution within the last five years, and people who have been convicted of a felony. Firearms dealers check the eligibility of potential buyers with the Department of State Police; if all qualifications are in order the purchaser can apply for a FOID card, which costs $5.

Legislation that would have done away with the ID card was the tip of the iceberg of gun-related legislation introduced this year, both by those considered "pro-gun" and those against. Most measures barely saw the light of day before being defeated in committee; some never were called for a vote. With neither side making headway, lawmakers are left wondering which philosophy, if either, has a better chance for success under the current makeup of the General Assembly.

Gun-related efforts ran the gamut this year — from a proposal by Rep. Louis Lang (D-16, Skokie) to hold gun merchants responsible for injuries caused by their "products" to one touted by Rep. Larry Wennlund (R-38, New Lenox) that would have allowed more people to carry concealed firearms. Both were voted down in committee.

"My view is when you go out into the general public and ask whether people should be held responsible for [injuries and damages resulting from] guns, whether people should have liability insurance if they own a gun, whether the state should make sure people know how to use guns before they're allowed to carry them, the answer is 'yes'," said Lang.

"But from a political standpoint, gun control is a very volatile issue, sort of like the abortion issue," he said. "Our failure to pass a ban on assault rifles is disgraceful. There are legislators who vote in the way they think represents their districts but actually does not. They think they can't vote pro-choice or for anything related to guns, even gun safety. The public understands that something has to be done, but it's a hard sell" in the legislature.

Lang intends to turn away from pushing traditional "gun control" measures — "I can't get them passed," he said — in favor of ones he sees as oriented toward "gun safety." As examples of avenues he may pursue, he pointed to requirements for trigger locks, increasing gun owners' responsibility in cases where injuries occur, and instituting an exam that would-be owners would have to pass before legally purchasing a gun. "We require people to take a test and know how to drive before they get a driver's license, yet a gun can be purchased by anyone with no proof they know how to use it," Lang said.

Rep. Carol Ronen (D-17, Chicago) introduced a bill that would have required FOID card applicants to show evidence of having passed a course in safe storage and use of firearms before

Veto session calendar September 29 October 12, 13,14 October 26, 27,28

54/August & September 1993/Illinois Issues

being allowed to purchase one. It failed in committee.

But even with this shift in focus to safety, Lang is not entirely optimistic based on past experience. "It's clear in Illinois the change of political party majority in the Senate will have an effect on progressive issues [like gun safety]," he said. "I think it's going to be more difficult to pass increased safety legislation with the Republican majority in the Senate."

Mark Gordon, spokesman for Senate President James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Wood Dale), said Philip generally is opposed to expanding firearm restrictions but supports tough penalties for crimes committed with guns. "He has considered in the past some sort of limits on automatic weapons," Gordon said. "The problem is drafting legislation without restricting other types of guns too."

Lang added that he worries about moving in the other direction with restrictions. "If we ever have a change in the majority of the House, I think there will be a dramatic and negative change in a number of social areas we deal with, and guns in particular," he said. "There are a number of members in the House who would remove a number of restrictions on firearms. Which is exactly why over the last several years there's been some impetus toward not bringing any of these issues to the floor — letting them sit in committee to avoid raucous debate on the House floor."

"I've seen more organized efforts by the pro-gun people lately than I have in a long time," said Rep. Joel D. Brunsvold (D-72, Milan). "Conservation organizations are finally starting to get active. Most of the push has been on anything dealing with 'antis.'

"As a pro-gun person I don't think there's any difference between the pro-and anti-forces in terms of who we should take guns away from," Brunsvold said. "I can't support the idea of: 'Let's take the guns away from everybody.' We can, if we pursue the right legislation and law enforcement efforts, take them out of criminals' hands."

He's not necessarily opposed to efforts like Ronen's. "A little educational process about gun safety in the home — I don't totally disagree. The NRA [National Rifle Association] does a lot of gun safety." *

August & September 1993/Illinois Issues/55