We all know the story by now, being the the Illinois General Assembly uses money from special funds to fund other non-related funds. Confusing, I know. But the one who’s complaining the most (Rep. Kathleen Willis) and who is requesting an increase of FOID fees via SB1966 in order to go into the State Police Firearms Services Fund has an interesting past regarding support for taking money out of it via fund Sweeps . Have a look:
That bill itself is toast, but pay attention here:
Ok, so what? From our 12/2 article:
This is confirmed by Rep. Wheeler‘s findings released 12/10/19 (page 4) and the Illinois State Rifle Association’s research. It was also part of the Illinois 2018 budget (if you hadn’t guessed already, as that how the money was found to be moved).
Willis is/was part of this (just making that crystal clear):
Did Rep Willis actually sponsor a bill in which part of it was used to in the Illinois budget in which it diverted $7.2 million from the State Police Firearms Services Fund? Sure seems like it! And she has the nerve to “fix the FOID” by making us pay more via SB1966 to legally own a firearm and expand the fund!?!?! As has been talked about over and over, here’s where the fee increases will go. See here:
So, originally it was going to be $38 for new and renewal of FOID cards, with $23 going into the fund (that has been being swept and money moved for other funds). It was amended to make new cards and renewals $20. Also, current FOID cards are good for 10 years. The new proposal would make them good for 5 years. Still a nice cash cow, wouldn’t you say?
Did I mention yet that this is Rep. Willis’s Bill? I’m sure everyone is aware by now. Just making that clear (again).
Be sure to check out this video of Rep. Willis being questioned during a testimony about SB1966 on 5/21/19 (more on that below). Should give some great insight into how she feels about us gun owners.
In conclusion, Rep. Willis sponsored a bill regarding fund sweeps in 2017, in which part of it ended up in the 2018 budget allowing the sweeping of $7.2 million dollars from the SPFSF (State Police Firearms Services Fund), and she has the nerve to say we need to pay more (and have it be valid for less time) for our FOID cards. Who’s to say that the money going into all of these funds won’t be used for other reasons, especially after all of this stuff has come out now? She knew the money was there via her involvement in fund sweep legislation in 2017 and that there was enough laying around in the SPFSF to send millions elsewhere. It would be interesting if the ILGA opened an investigation on this (Willis), as it appears it is an engineered crisis in order to defraud 2.3 million FOID card holders and use them as a source of revenue for pet projects. Most of all, Illinois gun owners shouldn’t be paying the Firearms Services Bureau staff to be having sex on the job. Which brings us to the last and final point. Rep Willis, explain your testimony noted here (from 5/21/19):
Senate Bill 1966 was advanced to the full House on Tuesday by the House Judiciary Committee on a vote along party lines. Sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Willis, D-Addison, an amendment to the bill would require new FOID card holders and those renewing their license to submit fingerprints. It also would increase application fees from $10 to $50, and reduce the time a license is valid from 10 years to 5 years.
Willis said the purpose of the bill is to "keep up" with FOID revocations and create better communication between local and state law enforcement agencies. "One of the reasons that we saw that revocations were not followed up as best as they could was because there was no money in resources to be able to do that," Willis said.
State Police Lt. John Thompson testified Tuesday about the challenges his agency faces with the limited funds it receives for FOID revocation enforcement.
He said the fee of $10 for 10 years isn't enough to sustain the nearly 1,000 applications the department receives daily.
Any comment, Rep. Willis? Or are you going to “sweep” this under the rug?
§ 32-2. Perjury.
(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false.
(b) Proof of Falsity.
An indictment or information for perjury alleging that the offender, under oath, has knowingly made contradictory statements, material to the issue or point in question, in the same or in different proceedings, where the oath or affirmation is required, need not specify which statement is false. At the trial, the prosecution need not establish which statement is false.
(c) Admission of Falsity.
Where the contradictory statements are made in the same continuous trial, an admission by the offender in that same continuous trial of the falsity of a contradictory statement shall bar prosecution therefor under any provisions of this Code.
(d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under subsection (a) of this Section if he or she is a peace officer who uses a false or fictitious name in the enforcement of the criminal laws, and this use is approved in writing as provided in Section 10-1 of “The Liquor Control Act of 1934”, as amended, 1 Section 5 of “An Act in relation to the use of an assumed name in the conduct or transaction of business in this State”, approved July 17, 1941, as amended, 2 or Section 2605-200 of the Department of State Police Law. However, this exemption shall not apply to testimony in judicial proceedings where the identity of the peace officer is material to the issue, and he or she is ordered by the court to disclose his or her identity.
Perjury is a Class 3 felony.