"Regarding the inadequacy of existing laws, Brinkmann offers the example
of a worker in northern Illinois who walked into his workplace and shot
several people earlier this year. Although he was a felon, his FOID card
wasn't taken away from him, so he could have purchased guns at gun shows."

In 1993, the gunman at the Navistar plant in northern Illinois,
William D. Baker, bought a shotgun and a rifle from a licensed
dealer. In spite of felony convictions in 1998 and 2000 that made it
a felony for him to own the guns, he avoided prosecution for their
ownership and used them in his 2001 attack. How was he able to keep
his guns? The 5th Amendment prohibited inquiries at the time of his
felony conviction that would have revealed his gun ownership. The
4th Amendment forbid a search for guns in his possession except by a
warrant, and the 4th says that warrants must describe "in particular"
the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Guns are not
difficult to hide, so even if his guns were registered, the police
could not have lawfully teased, taunted, or tortured him until he told where
they were. Darned Bill of Rights!

Here's a joke: An elderly Irish farmer writes his son, who has been
jailed by the British, asking who will dig up the garden so he can
plant his potatoes, if not his strapping son? He gets a letter back
from his son saying, "Don't dig up that garden, that's where I buried
the guns!" The next morning, twelve British soldiers come and dig
up the old man's garden, but they don't find any guns. The farmer
writes his son again, telling him that the British dug up the garden,
but there was not a single gun. "Go plant your damn potatoes!" is
his son's response.

HB403, as amended, would prevent local governments from passing gun
control ordinances in a manner inconsistent with state law. It is
opposed by gun owners for fear that non-uniform gun controls across
the state would make inter-county transportation of their firearms
a risky proposition. Barring painstaking diligence in planning
journeys between counties and a thorough understanding of many
localities' gun laws, some gun owners fear that by taking weapons
across county lines for practice, hunting, or personal protection,
they will be courting police harassment, arrest, and prosecution for
simple ignorance of diverse gun laws, or an honest misunderstanding.
Safe Schools' article does not mention that HB403 is only concerned
with local controls on rifles and shotguns.

I hope that gives a better idea why someone would support such a
law as HB403 except to infringe on "localities' rights" =) or be
a contrarian.

Except for a perennial hunter's safety course offered by the Champaign
Police, there does not appear to be any place in Champaign-Urbana
where one can learn to handle a firearm safely. With a FOID, however,
you can buy a gun at several Champaign County gun outlets! When there
is such a glaring need for a public firearms training venue in the
county, anyway; when untrained firearms owners might just flock to
it on their own initiative, without a compulsory licensing scheme;
and when one will need to visit such a venue to earn a license,
anyway, why aren't the Moms' local chapters trying to bring training
to their areas? This seems imminently feasible, since police departments
already have training grounds at which their own officers could train
community members, and a municipal act could authorize use for training. It
seems like training should be plank
number one of the Moms' platform, before licensing and registration. It
certainly is a peculiar program for social change that tries to bring the
force of law to bear and meanwhile eschews non-coercive means of
achieving any of that program's ends.