Illinois to Ohio Dealers - Get “Illinois License”

There may be fewer traveling from Ohio to Illinois to sell fine guns this year. It sounds like you need an Illinois Firearm Dealer’s license to sell in Illinois. I do not know which dealers have buildings rented but I know it costs some big dollars to get a license.

There are also some new hoops designed by anti gun bureaucrats.

More info needed!

Thanks to you guys in the trenches.

I report. You decide.
Merlo out.

 

Merlo I know for a fact that one Ohio Fine gun dealer is concerned about this issue, and considering his options. I told him that I read the law someplace on the net right after the first of the year but couldn't remember all the details but I remembered the number of $1500 and a bunch of regulations. I think it was here, or on FOX, sometime around the first of the year.

 

Merlo is right. It was news to me. Bill was signed 2 weeks ago by dem Gov Pritzker. I am thinking that since the Martins want to prop up that place they should pay all the dealer fees. Without them that shoot would be elsewhere.

Dealers will have other costs. Rules and regs on security systems and paperwork to be kept for the state and employee training. Small change to some.

Some will be thanking the Martins. Some thanking Jack.

 

It was posted on the State of Illinois web site, Dealers will be required to purchase an Illinois License at the cost of $1500.00 annually … Governor Pritzker is not close to being done yet based on what I have heard from a few Illinois residents, nothing specific as of yet but its in the works … WPT … (YAC) …

 

Cardinal cardinal cardinal

 

I never thought about how these laws would affect the Grand but it is a point. If I was a dealer & the Grand was the only Illinois shoot I attended I would not risk the additional cost. A couple years back they started the crap that you couldn't buy ammo i.e. Walmart (or anywhere) unless you are from Illinois or a bordering state. Shell house was exempt. That interpretation of the law makes no sense. There is a new head of Illinois State Police, decision is his, wonder if he will view it differently. Probably not. You have no idea what is all going on here. More taxes, taking private pensions & making them state run & more. Not good.

 

This might give Gipson a monopoly at Sparta. Funny how things work out.

 

With out vendors the Grand in Sparta is a LAME DUCK enterprise. They have already lost most of the small vendors, If they can not make money why would they go there? Who is going to turn out the last light? Thanks to our expert E.C. the last nail may be driven in the coffin sooner than we expected. It's a dirty shame what has happened to a once vibrant association.
Thank you E.C. and your minions for the fantastic direction but seems to be on a down hill slide, and it looks like it may be picking up speed. All of you should be in the hall of fame, as the men that killed the ATA. Roger C.

 

I live in Indiana so we do get some Illinois news that's drifts across the state line. TV reporter too mentioned the $1500 a year license fee, but also mentioned video security, etc.... The $1500 a year might be the "easy" part of getting a license.

I don't see how a lot of vendors at the Grand can even think about attending anymore and selling guns. Maybe the guns can be for "display purpose only" and the transaction takes place after the Grand and when dealers are back in their home state??

I knew dozens of shooters who never shot a registered target in their life who would go to the Grand every year to go "shopping". The move from Dayton and the lost of those amenities associated with that location chased half those shoppers away, and now with Illinois saying - NO SHOPPING for guns anyway is going to chase the rest away. Fewer shoppers = fewer vendors selling guns, beers, hotdogs, guns...….. The Grand will soon be nothing but a small building to pay your entry fees at and rest of time you go sit out in a field and wait.

 

I was just on the phone talking to a good friend of mine who works for a major importer of quality guns at the grand. They do not sell their guns there, just show them, with transaction elsewhere.

 

Interesting concept but how many smaller vendors could afford an additional $1,500.00 for a special state issued license for a limited use ..? When I had my FFL I was fortunate enough that the majority of my customers came to me for prices, on guns, ammo, reloading supplies and or anything related to the shooting sports … The particular situation I was in would not of made it affordable for me to have an additional expenditure of $1500.00 plus space rental, camping, and any other expenses that would come into play without cutting into my over all profits considerably … I'm not saying it won't happen but have to wonder how many small vendors would be able to dig deeper on a wing and a prayer ..? WPT … (YAC)…

 

The $1,500 is $28.85 a week for 52 weeks
If the state won't pro rate the dealers and charge them $57.70, round it up to $60.00, for the two weeks they are there the ata can pay for it and the dealers won't have to pay anything.
Of course the state could say they want $60.00 for EVERY spot that is available regardless if it is used or not. That would be a fantastic direction.
I myself hope the state wants the full ride from each dealer. No deals! Pay up or stay out.

 

Next thing you will see is a Illinois State Fee for a "Display of Firearms for sale" now that some vendors are considering a display only, buy later frame of mind.

I have not read this new law, but somewhere it may be buried in there that this "Display" may already be in there too.

Good Golly, don't feed the State any more ideas.

 

The State of Illinois is going to attach anything and everything to do with fire arms, ammo, and who knows what before its all over … The State of Illinois relaxed the States laws (baited the hook) until it got people who attend the grand accustomed being able to purchase ammo off the grounds, then once hooked they changed them back again placing limitations on where those who attend can spend their hard earned money without jumping through hoops … Cabella's has been competitive with their prices but that can change at a minutes notice if they are the only game in town … The State having elected a hard core democrat who is against people having any rights afforded them when it comes to guns can only continue to make things worse as time goes by … Stay tuned, more to come … WPT … (YAC) …

 

Can't say they weren't warned !!!

Some were thinking ahead for the future ~~~~~~~~~~

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING COMMENCING
DECEMBER 7, 2001
( 24 Pages )


VP Arvas discussed restrictive Illinois gun laws. VP Arvas has obtained written information from NRA regarding Illinois gun laws and distributed copies to each meeting attendee. This information shows that Illinois has the lowest number of hunters per capita of any state, and this is attributed to the restrictive gun laws. Illinois is ranked as one of most anti-gun states in the nation based on parameters set by NRA. VP Arvas stated that his main concern with Illinois gun laws, other than the restrictive manner in which they are presently written, is what assurance ATA can obtain that Illinois will not enact even stricter gun laws in the future and thereby cause harm to ATA. VP Arvas questioned the prudence and reasonableness of considering relocation to Illinois with full knowledge of the adverse gun laws and the necessary anti-gun legislators that are required to enact such laws. VP Arvas further questioned whether considering relocation to Illinois with full knowledge of the restrictive gun laws and no assurances that the laws will not become even more restrictive or onerous is not good judgement and is not in the best interest of ATA. VP Arvas stated that he believes this Executive Committee is being required to exercise judgement and make the determination whether or not to relocate in the State of Illinois with full knowledge of the adverse gun laws and with full knowledge of the legislators’ intentions as evidenced by the current Illinois gun laws. VP Arvas stated that he, as a voting member of this Executive Committee, has serious concerns about the present Illinois gun laws and whether the Illinois legislature will enact even stricter gun laws in the future, and ATA has no control and exercises no influence on the Illinois legislature.

President Wright commented that the southwestern portion of Illinois, which is the area under consideration by ATA for relocation of its facilities, is a very "gun friendly" area, however the northern portion of Illinois, in Chicago and surrounding areas and larger cities, is not a gun friendly area and never will be. He noted that the disparity in attitudes about guns is a common problem in the United States and in Canada. Large cities and areas of high crime are the areas within a state or province which control the passing of restrictive gun laws which affect the entire state or province, including strictly rural areas such as southwestern Illinois.

Executive Director Norris distributed copies of a memorandum he prepared regarding, among other subjects, legislation that was passed at the most recent Illinois legislative session, and provided copies of Conference Committee report on Senate Bill 397 which amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOIC) by removing some present restrictions and allowing purchase and delivery of a shotgun or shotgun ammunition by any non-resident 18 years of age or older, not otherwise prohibited by law, to purchase or obtain a shotgun or shotgun ammunition for the purpose of participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event, provided the shotgun or shotgun ammunition is obtained only at the site where the sanctioned competitive event is being held. This is a significant amendment to the FOIC, and Executive Director Norris further reported that a state representative had indicated in a recent conversation with him that a change in the 24-hour waiting period might be obtainable through existing legislation in conjunction with the Illinois State Patrol. Executive Director Norris has not obtained specific details, and will report back to the Executive Committee when such details are available to him. The Executive Committee requested additional information to clarify the gun law change, and whether or not transportation of firearms into and through the State of Illinois remains a potential problem for ATA members lawfully transporting their shotguns to and from the registered tournament.
Executive Director Norris will report any information he obtains regarding these questions.

President Wright stated that the change of Illinois Law appears to have resolved the ammunition purchase problem, however clarification is needed as previously indicated. President Wright further stated that it is imperative that ATA learn if transportation of guns by non-residents into and through Illinois has been, or will be, resolved for the protection of ATA and its membership.

President Wright stated that he believed additional information is needed to determine if legislation presently on the books or to be enacted will prevent ATA operation of its facility and therefore prevent relocation to the Sparta, Illinois area.


VP Arvas commented that issues regarding Illinois gun laws still have not been resolved to his satisfaction. VP Arvas questioned whether the positive aspects of relocation to Illinois outweigh the known negative issues, such as the adversity of Illinois gun laws, and the estimated costs to ATA of the project. He stated that in his opinion these are the real questions, and he believes this Executive Committee must bear these issues foremost in mind, and if the Sparta, Illinois site is unacceptable that determination needs to be made as soon as possible and go forward with investigation of the other site. Time is passing and ATA must not waste any of the time available. VP Arvas reiterated that this Executive Committee, and ATA, must be concerned about the adverse Illinois gun laws. These adverse gun laws could effectively destroy ATA by preventing ATA from utilizing the Sparta, Illinois property for its intended purposes, and this Executive Committee must consider the Illinois gun laws and decide if those laws are sufficient to render the Illinois site unacceptable. If this is the case, this Executive Committee must commence due diligence investigation on the alternate site, as the ATA Directors instructed. VP Arvas further stated that in his opinion the adverse Illinois gun laws need to be accurately disclosed, along with Executive Committee concerns, to the Directors and membership in order to keep them properly advised. (page 7)

 

Gotta love this one !

 

$10,000 fine for any violation. As an FFL holder I wouldn't get near the Sparta grand.

 

2,000+ shooters that used to shoot the GAH event must feel the same way, and most of them don't have a FFL.

 

How is the E.C. going to cover up the shit the state of Ill. is about to toss on their party. I hope this falls under our right to know clause. I'm sure the fantastic direction will prevail. Roger C.

 

OOPPs … WPT … (YAC) …

 

We, on the so-called "dark site" provide more negative "Sparta grand" news without fear of banning. That's what's great here while elsewhere others tremble with possible repercussions and an exile for even mentioning it.

 

I just wanted to copy the dawgs post so whoever has the watch over there gets it right.

 

I think we need a graph on something right now, don't you Neil?

 

AND IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS IN THOSE MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING COMMENCING
DECEMBER 7, 2001
( 24 Pages )


VP Arvas discussed restrictive Illinois gun laws. VP Arvas has obtained written information from NRA regarding Illinois gun laws and distributed copies to each meeting attendee. This information shows that Illinois has the lowest number of hunters per capita of any state, and this is attributed to the restrictive gun laws. Illinois is ranked as one of most anti-gun states in the nation based on parameters set by NRA. VP Arvas stated that his main concern with Illinois gun laws, other than the restrictive manner in which they are presently written, is what assurance ATA can obtain that Illinois will not enact even stricter gun laws in the future and thereby cause harm to ATA. VP Arvas questioned the prudence and reasonableness of considering relocation to Illinois with full knowledge of the adverse gun laws and the necessary anti-gun legislators that are required to enact such laws. VP Arvas further questioned whether considering relocation to Illinois with full knowledge of the restrictive gun laws and no assurances that the laws will not become even more restrictive or onerous is not good judgement and is not in the best interest of ATA. VP Arvas stated that he believes this Executive Committee is being required to exercise judgement and make the determination whether or not to relocate in the State of Illinois with full knowledge of the adverse gun laws and with full knowledge of the legislators’ intentions as evidenced by the current Illinois gun laws. VP Arvas stated that he, as a voting member of this Executive Committee, has serious concerns about the present Illinois gun laws and whether the Illinois legislature will enact even stricter gun laws in the future, and ATA has no control and exercises no influence on the Illinois legislature.

President Wright commented that the southwestern portion of Illinois, which is the area under consideration by ATA for relocation of its facilities, is a very "gun friendly" area, however the northern portion of Illinois, in Chicago and surrounding areas and larger cities, is not a gun friendly area and never will be. He noted that the disparity in attitudes about guns is a common problem in the United States and in Canada. Large cities and areas of high crime are the areas within a state or province which control the passing of restrictive gun laws which affect the entire state or province, including strictly rural areas such as southwestern Illinois.

Executive Director Norris distributed copies of a memorandum he prepared regarding, among other subjects, legislation that was passed at the most recent Illinois legislative session, and provided copies of Conference Committee report on Senate Bill 397 which amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOIC) by removing some present restrictions and allowing purchase and delivery of a shotgun or shotgun ammunition by any non-resident 18 years of age or older, not otherwise prohibited by law, to purchase or obtain a shotgun or shotgun ammunition for the purpose of participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event, provided the shotgun or shotgun ammunition is obtained only at the site where the sanctioned competitive event is being held. This is a significant amendment to the FOIC, and Executive Director Norris further reported that a state representative had indicated in a recent conversation with him that a change in the 24-hour waiting period might be obtainable through existing legislation in conjunction with the Illinois State Patrol. Executive Director Norris has not obtained specific details, and will report back to the Executive Committee when such details are available to him. The Executive Committee requested additional information to clarify the gun law change, and whether or not transportation of firearms into and through the State of Illinois remains a potential problem for ATA members lawfully transporting their shotguns to and from the registered tournament.
Executive Director Norris will report any information he obtains regarding these questions.

President Wright stated that the change of Illinois Law appears to have resolved the ammunition purchase problem, however clarification is needed as previously indicated. President Wright further stated that it is imperative that ATA learn if transportation of guns by non-residents into and through Illinois has been, or will be, resolved for the protection of ATA and its membership.

President Wright stated that he believed additional information is needed to determine if legislation presently on the books or to be enacted will prevent ATA operation of its facility and therefore prevent relocation to the Sparta, Illinois area.


VP Arvas commented that issues regarding Illinois gun laws still have not been resolved to his satisfaction. VP Arvas questioned whether the positive aspects of relocation to Illinois outweigh the known negative issues, such as the adversity of Illinois gun laws, and the estimated costs to ATA of the project. He stated that in his opinion these are the real questions, and he believes this Executive Committee must bear these issues foremost in mind, and if the Sparta, Illinois site is unacceptable that determination needs to be made as soon as possible and go forward with investigation of the other site. Time is passing and ATA must not waste any of the time available. VP Arvas reiterated that this Executive Committee, and ATA, must be concerned about the adverse Illinois gun laws. These adverse gun laws could effectively destroy ATA by preventing ATA from utilizing the Sparta, Illinois property for its intended purposes, and this Executive Committee must consider the Illinois gun laws and decide if those laws are sufficient to render the Illinois site unacceptable. If this is the case, this Executive Committee must commence due diligence investigation on the alternate site, as the ATA Directors instructed. VP Arvas further stated that in his opinion the adverse Illinois gun laws need to be accurately disclosed, along with Executive Committee concerns, to the Directors and membership in order to keep them properly advised. (page 7)


The negative aspects and concerns by VP Arvas obviously had no impact or created a cause for concern to the other Board Members because the State of Illinois relaxed some of the restrictions imposed on gun owners, and ones ability to buy ammo which were reversed again at a later date ... ( Who would of THUNK ..?) John Norris handed out the restrictions that were relaxed as well as the Laws in regard to the FOID cards issued by the State of Illinois which would lead one to think those things make a difference that makes the facility location more acceptable ( Thus never considering the laws (rules ) could be changed or reversed just as easily ) once the ATA committed to the relocation to the State of Illinois ... I seem to recall this point being pointed out to the ATA on several occasions by more than one person this was more probable then they thought impossible prior to the relocation ... VP Arvas obviously had some uncomfortable feelings and they were stated to the EC and ignored by same before jumping into a deal with the State of Illinois ( to be addressed as the Devil ) from that day forward ... Based on what was posted the ATA EC dropped the ball on that part of the due diligence and accepted a temporary amendment as a change of the laws as they were written ...

Desperation is seldom on the side of those who depend on it to be the answers like the ATA did as opposed to having a back up plan or business plan that could of been implemented just in case all else fails ... The ATA was told by more than one person how the State of Illinois has had a habit of doing business in the past before they got involved ... RED FLAGS were flying all over the place when there was a problem with the lease, MOU, Rental agreement, what ever else could not be finalized and concluded between the principles before getting involved ... This is one of those if it looks like shit ,smells like shit, you should not have to taste it to make sure its shit type of deals before getting head over heels involved ... It will be interesting to see what happens from this point on and where ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I should tell you something about this subject that I don't even think Merlo knows. Last week I was at Jaqua's buying a Ruger Red Label and was talking to Nick, he asked me what I'd heard about Sparta and if there was any news. I remembered reading about the new anti gun law Illinois had passed and told him that's the only news I knew. He said what, he hadn't heard anything about it. You'd think that Gipson would have given a heads up to vendor's like Jaqua's about the law. You'd think that but no nothing from the ATA or maybe he gave some a heads up, but no news release about the law. Just stone silence. Can't piss off your landlord, you'd be out on the street.

I asked Nick if he had paid for this years grand yet and he didn't think so but was busy on the computer reading the law and the phone talking to his staff to find out if he was paid as I was leaving. I doubt he had paid, but why wouldn't the ATA give these Vendors the common curiosity to inform them of the law? I told Nick to read this forum if he wanted to know what was happening in the future. Nick wasn't a happy camper as I was leaving.

 

Brad, Its obviously on the need to know list with a bunch of other things … WPT … (YAC) …

 

Pritzker’s Storied Charity Costs Him Little But Taxpayers A Lot
The wealthy governor candidate campaigns on his philanthropy, but records show most of his donated proceeds have first been filtered through offshore tax havens and a tax-exempt foundation.

ByChuck NeubauerandSandy Bergo
Feb 8, 2018 6:00 AM

Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images


This story was published withCrain's Chicago BusinessandThe State Journal-Register.

Billionaire JB Pritzker is the wealthiest candidate ever to run for Illinois governor and likely the most philanthropic, laying claim to at least $152 million in donations in recent years to children’s programs, universities, hospitals, a state Holocaust museum and much more.

Some of those donations have gone to causes tied to politicians and social activists now endorsing Pritzker’s campaign. Also In late 2016, he gave $250,000 to the non-profit bankrolling restoration of the governor’s mansion in Springfield, the same residence Pritzker soon after began campaigning to occupy.

Pritzker’s largesse is a major selling point of his bid for governor. But a Better Government Association examination shows that charity comes at little real cost to the candidate himself but considerable expense to federal and state treasuries.

Records show Pritzker has funded his charitable giving almost exclusively with inherited proceeds, much of it filtered through offshore tax havens and then deposited in a tax-exempt nonprofit he controls, the Pritzker Family Foundation.

The result is that Pritzker’s philanthropy, and any accolades that go with it, have been bankrolled with what is essentially found money. He did little to earn the proceeds and paid no taxes on the bulk of it before giving it away.

Pritzker’s record as a philanthropist is central element in his campaign asking Illinois voters to put him in charge of their tax money. In ads and speeches, he stresses how he has used his money to do good and make a difference.

But the complete story is more complex. Most people who make charitable donations do so out of earnings or savings on which they have already paid taxes. Pritzker, on the other hand, did no work for most of the money he has given away or pay taxes on it.

Unraveling that story requires both an understanding of Pritzker’s complicated lineage as an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune as well as the intricacies of elite tax breaks long baked into U.S. law.

Pritzker contributed $6 million of his own money to his foundation, records show. Another $52 million came from an uncle as well as separate non-profit foundations tied to relatives.

But most proceeds in his foundation, established in 2002, came from untaxed offshore trusts in the Bahamas setup years ago by his grandfather, Abram N. Pritzker, whose sons founded the hotel chain. Records show that over time the Bahama transfers to Pritzker’s non-profit added up to $225 million, including cash and Hyatt stock.


Assets in those Bahama trusts were invested and grew over decades. But the profits were not subject to taxation in the Caribbean island nation, and the trusts were designed to avoid income taxes in the U.S.

Pritzker would have had to pay federal and Illinois taxes had he moved the money out of the Bahamas and into personal accounts in the U.S. whether or not he kept it or gave it away. He avoided that expense by simply shifting money directly from the Bahamas to his foundation.

Campaign spokeswoman Galia Slayen did not answer directly when asked whether Pritzker, his trusts, or his foundation paid taxes at any stage on the money doled out to charities after first passing through the Bahamas and his foundation.

“All disbursements have followed all applicable tax laws,” Slayen said in an emailed statement.

Slayen, however, did frame Pritzker’s actions as both a personal sacrifice and high-minded altruism. “Rather than take personal distributions from offshore trusts, JB made the decision to direct all distributions made from the trusts to be given to charity,” she said.

“Additionally, JB believes philanthropy means more than writing checks, and he has shown that throughout his life,” Slayen continued. “JB has committed a great deal of his life to working with non-profit leaders and causes, lifting up organizations to do the most good in our communities.”

Pritzker, a venture capital investor with a net worth estimated by Forbes at $3.5 billion,

has never served in public office but is running on his record as a philanthropist, entrepreneur and creator of a small business incubator.

His campaign platform calls for amending the state constitution to replace Illinois’ current flat rate income tax with one that allows for higher taxes on wealthy people like himself. Pritzker has donated $49 million of his own money to his campaign to date.

Pritzker is one of three wealthy candidates running for governor, including incumbent Republican Bruce Rauner and Democratic developer Chris Kennedy, a son of slain New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

All lay claim to prodigious philanthropy.

Rauner, a private equity investor before his 2014 election, stresses the millions of dollars he has contributed to schools, youth programs and the Red Cross. Kennedy touts his support of hunger relief programs for the needy.

Another thing the three have in common: They all have been stingy with financial disclosures that would shed light on how they make and manage their money as well as breaks they leverage to lower tax bills.

That said, a review of hundreds of pages of public documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service and Securities and Exchange Commission reveals a paper trail of investments Pritzker has tapped to make his showcase donations.

WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM
Pritzker, whose full name is Jay Robert but goes by the initials J.B., comes from one of Chicago’s most influential and financially successful family dynasties. The family name adorns a wide array of the city’s cultural and educational institutions. One of J.B. Pritzker’s siblings, Penny, served as U.S. Commerce Secretary under former President Barack Obama.

Family lore often focuses on the rags to riches experience of Nicholas Pritzker, the great-grandfather of Penny and J.B., who arrived in Chicago from the Ukraine at the age of 10 unable to speak English and penniless. Yet he worked hard to become a successful lawyer.

But it was Nicholas’ son, Abram, who began building the family fortune, which really took off in the 1950s with the launch of the Hyatt chain that now operates 700 hotels.

Abram Pritzker, known as A.N., wanted to preserve and pass on his wealth to his family and aggressively sought out legal methods of avoiding or minimizing taxes. Even before grandson J.B. was born in 1965, A.N. Pritzker had set up a series of trusts for the benefit of his heirs. Some were set up in Illinois and others in the Bahamas.

J.B. Pritzker’s philanthropy is largely derived from assets long protected from taxation in two of those offshore accounts, the Moreau Trust and the Cheyenne Trust. Since 2006, those trusts, which while registered in the Bahamas also have mailing addresses in South Dakota, transferred $97 million in cash to his Pritzker Family Foundation, records show.

In addition, the trusts in 2015 transferred Hyatt stock then worth $90 million to the foundation, records show. By the time the foundation sold that stock in November 2017, its value had grown to $128 million.

Because the stock was held by his nonprofit and not Pritzker personally, no capital gains tax was owed on the sale of the Hyatt shares.

Separately, much of Pritzker’s current wealth is held in trusts set up in the U.S. for his benefit and that of his family. Pritzker declines to disclose the identities of those trusts, but SEC records reveal several named after elements of the periodic table. There is Gallium, DGC Germanium, LGC Tin and R.A.G.C. Iridium.

Another Pritzker held-trust is named Durham, apparently after the North Carolina city that is home to his alma mater, Duke University. And still another trust is named PG Alma, which could be a reference to the Alma River in great-grandfather Nicholas’ native Ukraine.

Since 2011, J.B. Pritzker has sold $364 million in Hyatt stock held in those domestic trusts, records show. His campaign said the trusts paid $19.4 million in Illinois income tax on those sales, but Pritzker has declined to release any portion of his trust tax returns. Based on tax rates his campaign did divulge, the BGA calculates the trusts also paid $70 million in federal taxes.

Pritzker has said that as a teen he spent one summer employed changing linen at a Hyatt hotel. That, however, was the only time he worked at Hyatt, a considerable source of his wealth and, by extension, much of his philanthropy.

WHERE THE MONEY WENT
Records of Pritzker’s foundation from 2002 through 2016, the latest year available, suggest a distinct overlap between his political aspirations and his charitable giving.

Pritzker has been a major donor to the two presidential campaigns of Democrat Hillary Clinton and served as national co-chair of her failed effort in 2008. In 2016, he was a Clinton delegate to the Democratic national nominating convention.

Meanwhile, Pritzker’s foundation has donated at least $17 million to the Clinton Foundation, the global charity run by Hillary Clinton, former president Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea.

In 2012, Pritzker’s foundation gave $250,000 to a charity run by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White which provides scholarships and tutors for at-risk youth.

White was the the first statewide office holder to endorse Pritzker’s run for governor and starred in aPritzker campaign adin which the secretary declared “JB’s the one I trust for governor.”

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White appears in an ad for the Pritzker campaign. Pritzker's foundation gave White's charity $250,000 in 2012.
Another campaign adfor Pritzker that is airing on radio and the Internet features Barbara Bowman, the mother of Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor in the Obama White House. Bowman was a co-founder of the Chicago-based Erikson Institute, which has received $1.8 million for early childhood education initiatives from Pritzker’s foundation.

Pritzker has played a major fundraising role for construction of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center museum in Skokie, and his foundation donated $9.9 million to the effort. Two Holocaust survivors, leaders of the drive to build the museum, appear inanother Pritzker campaign adtitled “Standing Up to Hate.”

Slayen said the donations and endorsements reflect long standing relationships and shared interests, not political tit-for-tat.

“To be clear, the implication you’re making is both ridiculous and offensive,” Pritzker’s spokeswoman said. “And if you are seriously asking if Holocaust survivors, a champion for early childhood education, and a decades long public servant are trading their endorsements for charitable contributions then the answer is unequivocally no.”

Education advocate Barbara Bowman appears in an ad for the Pritzker campaign. Pritzker's foundation has given Bowman's charity $1.8 million.
One priority of Pritzker’s philanthropy has been early childhood education for low income families and his foundation has given to several groups that promote that cause.

In an ironic twist, those recipients include the Chicago-based Ounce of Prevention Fund and a sister organization which have received $15.3 million in Pritzker donations. Both groups are run by Rauner’s wife, Diana.

Pritzker foundation donations also include millions of dollars distributed to schools with which the candidate and relatives have ties.

The foundation gave $8.3 million to Milton Academy, the exclusive Massachusetts boarding school he attended in his youth and which now has a science center that bears the Pritzker name. Another $2.5 million went to Duke University, where Pritzker earned his bachelor’s degree.

The University of South Dakota Foundation received $5 million, to help build a new student center named for Pritzker’s in-laws.

Closer to home, Pritzker’s foundation donated $17,000 to the Gold Coast Neighbors, which serves the upscale Near North neighborhood where he lives in Chicago. The foundation has also given $130,000 to the Geneva Lake Water Safety Committee, for boat safety patrols on Lake Geneva, where Pritzker has a weekend home, and $12,000 for the Bristol Volunteer Firemen, serving a Wisconsin town where Pritzker owns a horse farm.

Pritzker’s campaign said he also makes charitable contributions from personal assets separate from those held by his foundation. Between 2014 and 2016, the campaign said, donations from Pritzker’s personal accounts totaled $15.3 million, a fraction of the amount he gave away through his non-profit foundation.

The campaign did not detail the recipients of those gifts or the individual amounts, information that would be itemized in the full version of Pritzker’s personal tax returns that he has refused to make public.

In October 2015, Northwestern University announced that Pritzker had pledged $100 million to the law school, which was then renamed the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Pritzker is an alumnus.

The source of the NU donation is unclear. His foundation’s records from the date of the pledge through 2016, the last year available, show slightly over $1 million in donations to Northwestern. Pritzker did not answer BGA’s inquiries as to whether the law school gift will come out of foundation or personal funds, or whether it is to be fulfilled in future years.

Pritzker’s foundation has also donated $314,000 through 2014 to the Better Government Association. Rauner in the past also made sizable donations to the BGA, and Kennedy has donated to the watchdog group as well. None of the three has made donations to the BGA since formally entering politics.

“We are honestly dumbfounded that an organization like the BGA, which again, has received significant contributions from JB’s Foundation, would attempt to connect nonexistent dots,” Slayen said.

WPT … (YAC) …

 

The proposal would lower all local governments’ property tax levies by 10 percent and then freeze them in Illinois. Any future increase would require voter approval.

Illinois homeowners could get someproperty taxrelief if state lawmakers back a new bill to cut and freeze tax levies statewide.

State Reps. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, and Jonathan Carroll, D-Northbrook have co-sponsored a bill that would permanently lower property tax levies statewide by 10 percent.

The proposal,House Bill 320, would expandthe Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, or PTELL. PTELL limits the rate at which non-home rule communities in certain counties can increase their property tax levies. HB 320 would expand similar curbs to all taxing authorities in Illinois, regardless of county or home rule status.

“We have to do more than just stop property taxes from increasing – we must find ways to lower the property tax burden in Illinois,” McSweeney said in a statement.

Under HB 320, all Illinois taxing districts would phase in a 10-percent levy reduction during a two-year period. The levy is the annual amount a government requests from property taxpayers. Local governments would lower those requests by 5 percent in the 2019 levy year, and another 5 percent in 2020. The measure would freeze those 2020 levies, which could only increase again if voters approved a ballot question.

A July 2018analysisby the Illinois Policy Institute found that residential property taxes had grown 43 percent faster than home values since 1996. Andfor years, polling has shown that residents cite high taxes as theNo. 1 reasonthey wish to leave the state. Many have already planted roots elsewhere: December 2018 marked thefifth straight year of population lossin Illinois, a crisis driven primarily by more residents moving out than settling in.

“The longer we delay action on solving the property tax issue in Illinois, the more people are going to leave,” McSweeney said. “We know that people are leaving Illinois in droves in large part because the taxes are too high. We need to reverse this out-migration. It is time to lower property taxes permanently in Illinois.”

Illinoisans paysome of the highest property taxesin the nation. To effectively deliver long-term property tax relief, state lawmakers must ultimately address the primary driver behind Illinois’ high property taxes:rising pension costs.

Across the state, growing pension costs have led torecord property tax hikeswhileelbowing core public servicesout of local budgets. Absentmeaningful reform, pensions will only continue to eat a larger share of the pie.

HB 320 has been assigned to the HouseRevenue and Finance Committee. Lawmakers should give this bill a fair hearing in committee.


WPT … (YAC) …

 

Seems to me instead of shuttering the place, they are trying to make it cost prohibitive.
Looks like they are winning.


Regards......Gerald

 

Brad,
There is one thing about this that I find very hard to believe.......You bought a Ruger Red Label?

 

Progressive income tax proposal would sink Illinois
EDITORIAL: When employers join 'The Illinois Exodus' »

Illinois Houseand Senate would need to vote yes and 60 percent of Illinois voters would need to approve it. The proponents refuse to put their rate structure in the constitutional amendment, so they’re effectively saying that we’ll need to approve it and then find out what the rates would be. It’s important to note that Illinois politicians would then be free to continually increase rates like California, New York and New Jersey. Do you really trust Illinois politicians to set progressive tax rates?

The creation of a graduated income tax in Illinois would be a disaster for state residents. It would simply drive more people out of the state and likely end up as a massive tax increase for everyone — not just high-income earners.


All we have to do is look at the record of the progressive income tax in surrounding states. For instance, the highest tax rate of 6 percent in Missouri kicks in after $9,072 of taxable income. Couples making $9,000 per year are definitely not rich.

Proponents of a graduated income tax often cite Minnesota’s recent economic policies as the model to use in Illinois. However, using 2017 Minnesota tax brackets, every Illinois income earner would see a tax increase since the lowest bracket starts at 5.35 percent compared to the already too high Illinois income tax rate of 4.95 percent. The highest Minnesota tax rate of 9.85 percent applies to all taxable income above $261,150. Under a Minnesota-like progressive income tax structure, an Illinois married couple with $100,000 of taxable income would pay 29.7 percent more in taxes than under the current Illinois flat rate structure.

READ MORE: How that online sales tax ruling will affect you (and drag taxes into the 21st century) »

The progressive income tax would result in a massive tax increase and that is the last thing Illinois needs right now. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation routinely ranks Illinois as having among the highest total state and local tax burdens in the nation. When you combine a graduated income tax with all the other taxes Illinois residents pay, such as the second highest property taxes in the nation, a graduated income tax would do irreparable harm to our state.

As the late Rep. Jack Kemp once observed, the positive impact of lower tax rates on economic activity is not a matter of opinion — it is a matter of fact. Thanks to tax cuts and deregulation at the national level, the economy is booming with 3.8 percent unemployment. We need a similar resurgence in Illinois, but this will never happen if we enact bad policies such as the graduated income tax.

Illinois cannot afford more tax increases.

WPT … (YAC) …

 

I've been trying to research the new gun laws in Illinois via the Internet (I know, never believe what you find on the Internet). Perhaps I am misunderstanding what I am reading because I haven't seen this discussed here, but it appears to me that the new laws mandate a 3 day waiting period for ALL FIREARMS purchases. Additionally the waiting period exemption for State recognized gun shows has been eliminated. Does this mean that if someone buys a new trapgun in Illinois they can't take possession until 3 days later? Like I said, perhaps I am misunderstanding what I am reading.

 

Don I really believe that the three day waiting period was in effect under the old laws. I believe that was why some dealers left before the shoot was over. Correct me if I am wrong.

Dave Berlet

 

Thanks Dave,

I figured trap shoots would have been considered State recognized gun shows and thereby exempt. It will be a shame if this legislature passes laws that cripple any of the shooting facilities in Illinois. Copycat idiots around the country would just see it as a way they too could rid themselves of us demon trapshooters.

 

More regs might just do that. That is the point I think.

From Ammoland:
The new law would require all dealers to use electronic logbooks. These digital logbook programs can get costly and can be complicated to install. Also, some dealers have thousands of sales that they will have to transfer to the new system.

 

Don I bought an old 1970's Red Label 20 ga. SK/SK like I hunted with in the late 70's. I could really shoot the other one I had. I show it to you next time you are down.

I think what Nick was concerned about was all the new regs that the law will have. Why hasn't the ATA cleared this up and let some of the vendors know what was what? Have they asked any questions? Do they know? Do they care? How about a graph .

 

One would think that for over $100,000.00 a year, Mr. Gipson would chime in here and give some CLARIFICATION to this.

OR at least post a Clarification on the ATA web site.

Oh yeah, most of us aren't vending in Sparta, so why would we "NEED TO KNOW" ?

 

The State of Illinois has always done what the State of Illinois wanted when they wanted it no matter who was told what by whom when it was said ... The State relaxed some of the restrictions some years ago so those who attended shoots in Illinois could purchase their ammo at the retailer of their choice for use at the grand, this was changed back to the way it was previously once it became established and those relaxed laws soon because restrictions again unless the shooters jumped through hoops or bought hunting licenses (additional cost) so they could buy ammo other places besides on the WSRC grounds ... The returns the State are getting on the use of the facility does not warrant them keeping it in operation so based on that anything could happen in the future ... (Think Megs Field ) This new Governor is not gun friendly and instituted a new requirement requiring Dealers to buy Illinois business licenses at additional cost, that is just the start of what he can and will in all probability do in the near future ... This cannot be good news for trapshooting and those who attend the grand or any other shoots in Illinois collectively ... The State of Illinois web site and Face Book have a multitude of this new Governors actions or intentions for the future, none of which include provisions for trap shooters, hunters, gunners of any sort ... This seems like it would be a great time to have a back up plan, just in case ... Stay Tuned ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Brad,
I will try to touch base with Nick in the next couple of days to see what he found out. I'm glad you picked up the Ruger. Now when we hunt you can use that and I will just have to suffer with that sweet little 1913 Model 12 - 20 ga you have tucked away in the safe!

 

This is the best I can find...

Does this mean a TABLE TOP DEALER will only have a $300.00 fee ?

Springfield, Illinois –-(Ammoland.com)- A new law in Illinois requires gun dealers to be licensed by the state.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/ne...n-dealers-to-get-state-license/#ixzz5fVgzYzrm
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Becoming a legal gun dealer is not an easy task. The prospective dealer has to apply with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The application process is not simple to navigate. Most dealers pay for expensive packages from companies to learn how to deal with just the application process.
The applicant must provide the BATF with passport pictures, fingerprints, and the ATF will submit their information to the FBI for a criminal background check. This step is just the beginning. The new business also has to provide other things such as articles of incorporation, zoning information, a lease that states that the building owner lets the dealer sell firearms, and copy of their business licenses.
The BATF will send an agent out to the new business to inspect the facility to make sure the dealer secures the firearms by lock and key. The BATF agent will then interview the dealer about their business. The ATF will consider everything and issue a Federal Firearms License (FFL) or deny the application.
This lengthy process is about to get longer for any FFL located in the state of Illinois. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a law into effect that would require all gun dealers to be licensed by the state as well. This new process is leading the business owners to cry foul.


The dealers must seek a state license that is certified by the State Police. The dealer must provide annual training to all their employees to be able to spot straw purchases. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone else who is usually not allowed to own a firearm.
All gun dealers must install expensive security cameras and must record all activities within the retail section of the stores. These recordings must be made available to State Police upon request.
Gone will be the days of dealers using the popular log books that most tabletop dealers use to keep track of their firearms. The new law would require all dealers to use electronic logbooks. These digital logbook programs can get costly and can be complicated to install. Also, some dealers have thousands of sales that they will have to transfer to the new system.
Under the new law, the gun dealer must allow inspections of their business by not only state police, but also by local police departments. These inspections are in addition to the surprise inspections that are performed by the ATF.
The license will cost $1,500 for retail stores and $300 for tabletop dealers. The dealers must renew their license every five years. The 2,400 dealers in the state of Illinois will have six months to get the new license.
The anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action, celebrated the passage of the anti-gun law. The law is just one of the many rules that the anti-gun group has been pushing to make it costlier and more difficult to buy and sell guns.
“We feel like celebrating,” said Karen Irvin of Moms Demand Action. “It’s been a major focus for Moms Demand Action. We spent the summer with a push for electing J.B. Pritzker as our gun-sense candidate, and we knew that there was a great likelihood that he would not only support this measure, but he would move to enact it. We canvassed our neighborhoods, made phone calls, and it was something we believe in and think it’s important.”
Gun dealers across the state believe the new law was passed just to make it harder to sell the guns. The margins on firearms are already low so by adding more cost of the price of doing business it could put dealers out of business.
The Illinois State Rifle Association is planning a lawsuit challenging the new law.
“The federal government already licenses gun dealers,” executive director Richard Pearson of The Illinois State Rifle Association said in a statement. “There is no need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy on gun dealers. The only thing this measure is going to do is make it cost more money for gun dealers to do business in Illinois, which is going to hurt the smaller dealers.”
The Illinois State Rifle Association views the new law as an attack on the Second Amendment.

 

I wonder how many table top dealers (independent ) even have a business license let alone an FFL, this can be a can of worms for them as well as anyone interested in buying guns from them … Sadly this can only have a negative impact on shoots in Illinois and any other state that enacts such a law … The smaller table top dealers operate freely in Arizona without the restrictions being imposed as well as the additional cost to all concerned … This can only make the small independent guys either go out of business or operate outside the law and if caught they can be charged/fined criminally … One has to wonder also if there will be any back lash to the clubs who rent spots for the vendors and if they will be required to ask for their license in the states that require it … This is not and cannot be good for any and all involved … WPT … (YAC) …

 

I seen on the news tonight that Illinois just passed the $15 an hour minimum wage. Kicks in over a 3 or 4 year period. I guess in a few years - pullers and scorers will be getting $15 an hour at Sparta. If a scorer is getting $15 an hour what is a loader or trap mechanic going want - $25, $30? Hot dog vendor helper?? Wonder what the state worker is going to be receiving? A lot of them have it in their contract that they must make 2x, 3x, 4x what a min wage worker earns.

So now the vendors at Sparta will have to ponied up $1500 for a gun license but also pay a cashier $15 an hour.

On a side note - I want everybody to make as much money as they can, but what is the retired person on social security in Illinois going to do when min wage workers are making $15 an hour? Now the average person on SS receivers $1250 a month in SS, or $15K a year, about what a person on min wage now makes $7.50 an hour times 2000 hours = $15K a year. Now that person will be making $30k a year while retired person will still be receiving $15K a year. I guess retired people better not plan on going to McDonalds in the morning anymore to drink coffee and eat an Egg McMuffin.

 

$300 per year ($1500 for 5 years) certainly isn't going to dissuade any real dealers from selling in Illinois. Compared to the expenses dealers incur as a routine matter of doing business, it's nothing.

 

I read it as $1500 per year. + electronic log. You will have to log guns out of your state and into IL and back again. Training classes for employees too. I think the 300 is in addition to for also going to table shows. And the new bonus you may get to ask for access to buyers social media accounts.

 

Bump. Seen on another thread that Jaguas isn't going to be at this year's Grand. One reason given was they are moving into a new building in Ohio and don't have time for Grand this year. I'm betting the new Illinois gun laws contributed to their decision to not attend Grand too.

 

Elsie, I don't think wages are based on what the government pays for Social Security.
But I do know that $15 bucks an hour for a 40 hour work week x 50 weeks a year is $30,000 per year before taxes. That is a princely $2,500 gross per month. Pretty hard for a person to live on that and virtually impossible for a family.
Isn't a rising economy (I believe your avatar image called it "the best economy we ever had") supposed to raise up folks at the bottom of the economic ladder as well as those at the top?
Jake

 

I am attempting to come up with some reasoning in my little brain as to WHY would anyone want to go out to that place and sell their guns when there are only a couple of thousand shooters participating ?

I have gone to shoots with guns that I am happy with, and I am betting that most of the shooters do also.

Now you put many vendors of guns out there in front of the masses with tons of guns to choose from. How many guns do you think are sold by any one of the vendors when there are so many to choose from ?

It just doesn't make much sense to me for them to spend all that money just to show their wares to a couple thousand who can only drool but not want to buy.

Am I wrong?

Are there a lot of guns sold by all the vendors, and enough to make a profit after all those expenditures ?

Just wondering as I am not a vendor and would like to hear the reasoning to go to Sparta ?

 

Sure, they'll sell a few guns, but trap gun sales. along with diminished participation, have dropped significantly over the years. Like everything else, the internet has taken over gun sales and trapshoots have become a mostly show and tell with fewer face to face transactions. I can't see making much money as a vendor at a shoot with less than half the entries from years ago.