Jump to content

Any mag capacity restriction updates for 2018?


Chicago312

Recommended Posts

Chicago is:

A semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.

 

A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

High capacity magazine means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of more than 15 rounds of ammunition. A high capacity magazine does not include an attached tubular device to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

Cook is

Large-capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:

 

(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds. (2) A 22-caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

 

 

As far as I am aware, state law trumps county restrictions.

 

Until Highland Park V Friedman is heard before the Supreme Court (if ever) local ordinances on guns can overrule state law.

 

The conceal carry law does specifically state that on pistols state law overrules home rule municipal or county ordinances.

 

Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act

Section 90. Preemption.

The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and

transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by

licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any

ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose

regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and

ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act

shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act

on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and

limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection

(h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

 

 

Both Cook and Chicago ban as an Assault weapon under Semi auto shotgun "A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds". Only Cook states "An ability to accept a detachable magazine". Which is interesting because that would mean in Chicago you could have a detachable magazine shotgun that could accept 15 rounds.

 

With rifles I dont know that you would currently have a legal challenge on magazine capacity. Unless I'm missing something the way it's worded in Chicago you can have a detachable magazine with 15 rounds but a fixed magazine with only 15 rounds for a handgun, 10 rounds for a rifle, and 5 rounds for a shotgun. But then states that if it's removable it's limited to 15 rounds all around.

 

With Cook on detachable magazines it's limited at 10 rounds all around.

 

I don't understand why they spell out a separate limit for fixed magazines in Chicago.

 

If you are planning on living in any of these areas it's up to you to read the full law and conclude your own understanding as I'm not a lawyer. Just pasting and commenting on what's on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Déjà vu

Do we have a sticky? Or would anyone like me to paste the relevant ordinances for Chicago and Cook and sticky it?

 

The PITA is that the slight word variations in Cook and Chicago actually make a huge difference. Like the M1A with a pinned muzzle device is legal in Chicago since Chicago only bans threaded barrels. It only gives examples of devices you could attach to a threaded barrel but doesn't outright ban flash hiders or muzzle brakes. Cook County goes on to specifically ban muzzle brakes. So if you pinned your muzzle brake on your M1A in Chicago you would be boned if you moved to Cook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More relevant (?), does anyone know of any instance where these "restrictions" are being enforced???

 

I still hold that if they can legally be selling these items in the county (and taxing them) then there is no way it will stand in court.

They can't legally sell them unless the city where they are being sold has an ordinance that overrules the county ordinances. In fact both Cook and Chicago state that "dangerous weapons" dealers can't sell either the guns or the magazines to anyone but law enforcement.

 

I know specifically one person was arrested in Highland Park under the influence of marijuana with what they deemed a high capacity magazine in a handgun. The guy got several other charges so it's not a clean test case. So I don't know the outcome or if the magazine charge was dropped.

 

Highland Park is in Lake County, although there may be a small part that is in Cook since it borders the county line.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of people that don't comply, but there is the legal framework to charge you if you dont fully understand the federal, state, county, and city laws. So read all of them because they are all different. And draw your own reasonable conclusions especially on the more disputed elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

More relevant (?), does anyone know of any instance where these "restrictions" are being enforced???

 

I don't think there has been any enforcement.

Found the Highland Park case when I googled, on Illinois carry of all places.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54226&page=1

 

From what I can tell this charge stuck. And since Highland Park V Friedman (another case of a resident suing the city for the ban) has the ban ruled constitutional in every court short of the Supreme Court. For now these bans are enforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

More relevant (?), does anyone know of any instance where these "restrictions" are being enforced???

I don't think there has been any enforcement.

Found the Highland Park case when I googled, on Illinois carry of all places.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54226&page=1

 

From what I can tell this charge stuck. And since Highland Park V Friedman (another case of a resident suing the city for the ban) has the ban ruled constitutional in every court short of the Supreme Court. For now these bans are enforceable.

 

 

... I don't think there has been any new enforcement.

 

-The Highland Park mag/pot guy received a fine and supervision in an administrative hearing.

-SCOTUS declined to hear Highland Park v Friedman and a couple other cases involving bans in the wake of the Sandy Hook, CT, shooting. The Highland Park AWB has not been upheld by SCOTUS.

 

"For now these bans are enforceable" and yet, it does not appear that anyone is enforcing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The danger is that they are enforceable on a whim. This is weaponized government. It's a patchwork of rediculous and contradictory laws that are hard to understand yet have stood up in court.

 

Just because they haven't been enforced on a major level they could be enforced. And they are often enforced in other gray legal areas like civil asset forfeiture or a reason to detain if suspected of other crimes.

 

The old adage of "don't break the law while breaking the law" gets harder to follow the more laws there are.

 

It's only a matter of time before you find yourself with a long list of charges because some member of law enforcement or the legal system had a bad day or wanted to make an example of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Section 90 of the FCCA has been cited here, but you also need to read 430 ILCS 65/13.1

This is the Pre-emption section of the FOID act which covers FOID card holders and it also discusses the so called "assault weapon ban"

 

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)
Sec. 13.1. Preemption.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and subsections (B) and © of this Section, the provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act.
(B) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, enacted on or before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, on the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, shall be invalid in its application to a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act.
© Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly. Any ordinance or regulation described in this subsection © enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly is invalid. An ordinance enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly may be amended. The enactment or amendment of ordinances under this subsection © are subject to the submission requirements of Section 13.3. For the purposes of this subsection, "assault weapons" means firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features that cumulatively would place the firearm into a definition of "assault weapon" under the ordinance.
(d) For the purposes of this Section, "handgun" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 5 of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act.
(e) This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.
(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Section 90 of the FCCA has been cited here, but you also need to read 430 ILCS 65/13.1

This is the Pre-emption section of the FOID act which covers FOID card holders and it also discusses the so called "assault weapon ban"

 

 

This addresses a freeze that went into effect, explained below.

 

Public Act 92-0238, Illinois Compiled Statutes (430 ILCS 65/13.3), approved on August 3, 2001, amends the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Act. This amendment requires that within 6 months after the effective date, every municipality must submit to the Illinois State Police a copy of every ordinance adopted by the municipality that regulates the acquisition, possession, or transfer of firearms within the municipality and must submit, as soon as possible after adoption, every such ordinance adopted after the initial submission. Public Act 92-0238, Illinois Compiled Statutes (430 ILCS 65/13.3), also provides that the Illinois State Police shall compile the ordinances and publish them in a form available to the public free of charge and shall periodically update the compilation.

 

In compliance with Public Act 92-0238, Illinois Compiled Statutes (430 ILCS 65/13.3), electronic copies of the ordinances submitted to the Illinois State Police have been compiled and published here. This site will be periodically updated as needed. If additional information regarding a specific ordinance is needed, please feel free to contact the specific municipality.

 

 

Municipalities (is a county a municipality?) had a certain freeze period to adopt an assault weapon ban, or lose any ban that was on the books and lose the right to adopt a new one after a certain date.

 

So it doesn't void municipal assault weapon bans. It just prevents new bans from being added. It also voids any old language about gun bans and registrations that several towns had, since municipalities might not be on top of updating their laws.

 

ISPFSB lists the ordinances adopted

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/MunicipalOrdinances.aspx although last I checked a few still had language that was out of date. And Cook County is absent, so are they not in compliance?

 

What is the penalty for non compliance for the municipalities?

 

Also, thinking out loud:

 

Municipalities" means cities, villages and incorporated towns. "Units of local government" means counties, municipalities, townships, special districts, and units, designated as units of local government by law, which exercise limited governmental powers or powers in respect to limited governmental subjects, but does not include school

districts.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

So might the fact that home rule was only granted to municipalities, not counties, for a set period of time mean that Cook's ban is void ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So might the fact that home rule was only granted to municipalities, not counties, for a set period of time mean that Cook's ban is void ?

 

 

Home rule has a number of uses, however, it is most commonly used to generate revenue through its broad tax powers.” Cook County is the only county in Illinois with home rule status.”

 

 

 

No one is going door to door in any "ban" zones looking for AWs and big mags." If you get pinched for a big mag it will be due to some far more important wrong you've done.

 

Someone here recently wrote "it's up to you to read the full law and conclude your own understanding as I'm not a lawyer."

 

My personal conclusions:

-I have no assault rifles so that doesn't apply to me now*

-There is no high capacity magazine ban/limit in Illinois because of that pre-emption language in FCCA

-It would be nice if the magazine thing was crystal clear

 

*If "they" seek to beef up those AWB things, I'll be there with you in opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any updates with Illinois mag capacity restrictions, specifically in the cook county area? Been reading and from what Ive found, anything that was in place perviously regarding 12rds is now null and void.

Anything official in black and white? Is it 15rds now?

We don't follow every municipality, but I can say with certainty that nothing has changed at the state level in the past 12 months (the first half of the 100th GA), and nothing I'm aware of in Cook County. We follow Chicago less closely. Haven't noticed any changes there, either.

 

mkhalil61 is correct that state law preempts local ordinance with regard to handguns. It also preempts ordinances relating to things defined as "assault weapons" unless the ordinance was enacted prior to 7/20/2013.

 

 

 

More relevant (?), does anyone know of any instance where these "restrictions" are being enforced???

 

I still hold that if they can legally be selling these items in the county (and taxing them) then there is no way it will stand in court.

No, not really. And at least one village attorney, an expert on home rule by the way, publicly expressed the opinion that the Cook County ban does not apply to his municipality.

 

About the only place we can say with certainty that the County ban applies is within unincorporated Cook. It might apply in non-home rule municipalities within Cook Count as well.

 

That, by the way, is entirely consistent with the big push to get home rule municipalities to enact bans within the allotted window, especially within Cook County.

 

 

Found the Highland Park case when I googled, on Illinois carry of all places.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54226&page=1

 

From what I can tell this charge stuck. And since Highland Park V Friedman (another case of a resident suing the city for the ban) has the ban ruled constitutional in every court short of the Supreme Court. For now these bans are enforceable.

He stipulated to the equivalent of a building code vioation, paid his $75, and went on his way. He apparently didn't want to invest the time in doing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The danger is that they are enforceable on a whim. This is weaponized government. It's a patchwork of rediculous and contradictory laws that are hard to understand yet have stood up in court.

 

Just because they haven't been enforced on a major level they could be enforced. And they are often enforced in other gray legal areas like civil asset forfeiture or a reason to detain if suspected of other crimes.

 

The old adage of "don't break the law while breaking the law" gets harder to follow the more laws there are.

 

It's only a matter of time before you find yourself with a long list of charges because some member of law enforcement or the legal system had a bad day or wanted to make an example of you.

In the spirit of legally exercising our rights, we tend to avoid sowing unwarranted fear and doubt. I'll thank you to apply that to your posts going forward.

 

 

 

Municipalities (is a county a municipality?) had a certain freeze period to adopt an assault weapon ban, or lose any ban that was on the books and lose the right to adopt a new one after a certain date.

 

So it doesn't void municipal assault weapon bans. It just prevents new bans from being added.

...

That much is true in regard to "asssult weapon" bans, but there's a great deal more to preemption that does negate local ordinance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois law allows localities to ban assault weapons...provided the law was in place BEFORE the Concealed Carry Act was passed into law. I don't believe Illinois law allows municipalities to ban anything else...including magazine capacity.

 

Don't take my advice. Talk to your lawyer. If you don't have a lawyer, you should get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at least one village attorney, an expert on home rule by the way, publicly expressed the opinion that the Cook County ban does not apply to his municipality. About the only place we can say with certainty that the County ban applies is within unincorporated Cook. It might apply in non-home rule municipalities within Cook Count as well.That, by the way, is entirely consistent with the big push to get home rule municipalities to enact bans within the allotted window, especially within Cook County.

My understanding was home rules only applied for conflicting ordinances. I. E. Cook says no xxxx gun, suburban cook town says xxxx gun is OK. Suburban cook town overrules cook county.

 

So, if a Cook County municipality had no rules in relation to firearm ownership on the books, would it then defer to Cook County? Or are you saying it would defer to Illinois law?

 

What municipality was that? I'd be curious of the details.

 

the Illinois constitution, Article 7, Section 6©, provides if a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction.

 

Thats speaking about a home-rule county ordinance, but the implication of that provision is not limited to home-rule municipalities, said Jim Bateman, Barrington village attorney. It applies to any municipality.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/12/12/barrington-opts-out-of-chicago-style-laws-imposed-by-cook-county/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any updates with Illinois mag capacity restrictions, specifically in the cook county area? Been reading and from what Ive found, anything that was in place perviously regarding 12rds is now null and void.

Anything official in black and white? Is it 15rds now?

They had their time to pass an AWB or any mag restrictions. That window is CLOSED. No more changes unless at state level.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existing bans, those passed before the window closed, can be amended so it's possible to see changes, but maybe not too likely.

 

I have to agree with this. Such bans are DOA in all but the most rabid anti-gun communities. Those places likely have everything they already think they need/want.

 

I live in suburban Cook. I can tell you that our city council does not want to address controversial issues one way or the other. They just want to make their budgets and deal with community development projects. No one is eager to tackle anything that might make enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...