billzfx4 Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM I still want to know exactly how the heck one is supposed to 'register' a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM Class 4 felony for any unlawful ownership of magazines (loading devices) in excess of 10 rounds. Required registration... Only FFL's can own such devices... Sets forth a "large feeding device" leasing program, where you can rent a magazine from the range LOL... What the hey!!!.. Based on "unusually dangerous" language from Heller and McDonald. Typically gibberish that has been spewed during the court cases. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM I still want to know exactly how the heck one is supposed to 'register' a magazine. Serial numbers? Maybe they have a cartouche, with a crooked cross on it, that they'll use to emboss existing magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:28 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:28 PM I'm absolutely disgusted. They amended a bill that would put restrictions on ranges to include the ownership, sale, and use of "high-capacity" magazines?!? That has nothing to do with it!!! Actually, it's worse than that. The bill's original intent was to enhance nuclear safety. Kotowski has decided that 11 round magazines are more dangerous than sloppily run nuclear power plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbaltzx Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:28 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:28 PM This is only for magazines capable of more than 10 rounds??? Not "assault weapons"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:29 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:29 PM guys quit posting the names of people with their repsonces. all you do is give the otherside a roll call to work without havignto do the leg work But I really appreciate the info, because it saves me the legwork too! How does it save you legwork? Are you saying you are here to inform to, "The Dark Side". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM This is only for magazines capable of more than 10 rounds??? Not "assault weapons"?I was thinking that too. There must be more eggs hidden somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM Ah--you guys are right. I got ahead of myself. This is apparently a standalone magazine ban bill. The other stuff is happening elsewhere. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeckler Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM OK, looks like Senator Dan Kotowski has filed an amendment to HB 815. The text of the amendment is an all-out assualt on "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," .50 caliber guns, etc. Utterly disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:37 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 10:37 PM a class 4 felony for a mag?...damn your better off selling drugs on the street corner or pimping out womenz..best you get for that is some counseling and scolding by the judge that you never do that again..oh what the heck soon we will have legal dope smoking clubs and honest illinois people in jail for having a standard capacity mag..how ironic its become Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM There is now an amendment to HB 1263, banning "assault weapons" and .50 caliber firearms and ammo. It's Senate Amendment #5, filed by Antonio Muñoz. Also, Muñoz has filed an amendmnet to HB 1237, that looks as if it's intended to make it easier for cops who have been ruled mentally ill to get their guns back--because a crazy person with guns is only dangerous if he/she is not a cop, I guess. The amendment is Senate Amendment #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtremeRevolution Posted January 2, 2013 at 11:07 PM Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 11:07 PM Don't forget, in HB1263...an assault weapon is also considered: "a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with thecapacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzlebrake, or muzzle compensator;" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted January 3, 2013 at 12:50 AM Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 12:50 AM So what do folks think the point of Senate Amendment #6 to HB 1263 is about--making SA# 5 a bit more palatable, and thus more easily passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted January 3, 2013 at 12:55 AM Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 12:55 AM Room 409: They are talking now... Audio is live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Destro Posted January 3, 2013 at 01:01 AM Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 01:01 AM © This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a 16 weapon or attachment prohibited by subsection ( before 17 January 1, 2014, provided that the person has provided proof of 18 ownership, his or her name, and other identifying information 19 to the Department of State Police, as required by the 20 Department, within 90 days after January 1, 2014. On or after 21 January 1, 2014, the person may transfer the weapon or 22 attachment only to an heir, an individual residing in another 23 state maintaining that weapon in another state, or a dealer 24 licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the 25 federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Within 10 days after transfer 26 of the weapon or attachment, the person shall notify the 09700HB1263sam005 - 12 - LRB097 07183 JWD 73033 a 1 Department of State Police of the name and address of the 2 transferee and comply with the requirements of subsection ( 3 of Section 3 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. The 4 Department shall promulgate any rules it may deem necessary to 5 carry out the provisions of this subsection, including the 6 establishment of fees charged and collected for collecting and 7 maintaining the information required to be provided under this 8 subsection. Why do we have to give the ISP the out of state info of the transferee? It basically feels like a registration of some kind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted January 3, 2013 at 01:11 AM Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 01:11 AM Go Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.