It’s been more than a year since Illinois state Rep. Kevin John Olickal introduced the “Responsibility in Firearm Legislation” or RIFL Act, and so far the bill hasn’t seen much movement. It was shunted off to the House Rules committee last February, and hasn’t had so much as an initial hearing.
Still, the legislation that would require firearms manufacturers to obtain a license from the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation in order to sell their products in the state has quietly gained co-sponsors in the months since it’s been introduced, and now anti-gun politicians at the local level are pushing to get HB 3320 enacted into law.
Earlier this month the board in the Chicago suburb of Lake County voted to support the RIFL Act, with just one Democrat on the board joining Republicans in opposition.
The item was originally presented at the board’s Legislative Committee earlier this month, which among other responsibilities, looks at drafting and recommending legislative positions. With majority support, items typically are considered to have consensus, but the RIFL Act was brought before the broader County Board at the request of board member J. Kevin Hunter.
Votes fell largely along partisan lines, with members Hunter, Ann Maine, Michael Danforth, Linda Pedersen and Adam Schlick, all Republicans, voting against supporting the act. Diane Hewitt was the sole Democrat joining them.
Board Republicans cited mostly process issues, wondering how an item that was so likely to generate controversy had been added with what they felt lacked sufficient notice. Danforth alleged “the man behind the curtain was pulling some strings,” noting the Legislative Committee meeting was well-attended by numerous supporters of the act.
Most critics avoided taking a definitive stance on the RIFL Act itself, with some expressing neutrality in the debate.
Danforth, who the Chicago Tribune describes as the loudest critic of the resolution, argued that if adopted the RIFL Act would be a “firearm killer bill” that would lead to an end to all gun sales in Illinois.
Is that hyperbolic? Not really. The end might be gradual, but the effect of the RIFL Act would be felt almost immediately.
Under the legislation, the cost of obtaining a license would vary from company to company, and would be based on two factors. First, the DFPR would determine the amount of all licensing fees based on an estimate that is “is equal to the public health costs and financial burdens borne by the State and its residents as a result of firearm injuries.” In the first year, that amount is capped at $866 million dollars.
How much of that an individual company would be required to pay is based on the market share of each manufacturer, as determined by the DFPR. If a company accounts for 14% of gun sales in the state, for instance, then their license would cost $121,240,000. Even a 1% market share would result in a $8.66 million license fee.
But the legislation also allows for the license fee to be “adjusted by the Department based on the number of firearms recovered in a given year in connection with incidents involving firearm injuries that are linked to a specific manufacturer in the State, regardless of modifications or accessories added to the firearm after manufacturing, divided by the total number of firearms recovered in connection with those incidents in that same year.”
What would happen to the availability of firearms as a result? Most gun companies would simply refuse to pay, and would no longer make their guns available for sale. Smaller companies and new entities might take their place, since they wouldn’t really have a market share at all and could be exempt from paying anything for their license, at least for the first year. After that though, those companies would face the same financial barriers as those who are currently serving the Illinois market.
So yes, Danforth’s description isn’t all that hyperbolic. But what are the chances of the RIFL Act passing this session? I wouldn’t put anything past the anti-gun politicians in Springfield, but the RIFL Act has some serious problems, just from a practical perspective.
ATF trace data can tell Illinois officials how many guns were traced in a given year, including the make and model of those firearms, as well as the reason for the trace, but not every trace involves a gun recovered as the result of an incident where an injury occurred, and not every firearm-related injury results in a gun being recovered.
That might not matter to supporters of the RIFL Act, but it definitely matters to the manufacturers who would sue over the validity of the bill if it were to become law, given that millions of dollars are at stake.
Given the lack of movement for HB 3320 over the past year, I’m not too concerned about the bill at the moment. If it gets a committee hearing, though, gun owners should definitely be paying attention. And if other blue state legislators decide to introduce similar bills, it really could pose an existential threat to gun sales in those states. We’ll be keeping close watch on the legislation this session, and if it does start to move forward we’ll be blasting out that news far and wide.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
