Jump to content

Chicago laws for AR pistols?


jawman

Recommended Posts

If I understand correctly, local laws regarding pistols were voided and preempted by the state once the CCL act passed. Meaning that magazine capacity limits for pistols are invalid and only controlled at the state level. Furthermore, local ordinances that still have magazine capacity limits on their lawbooks can only apply to long guns/rifles, because the state has preempted all local handgun

laws.
So my question is, does this mean that someone in Chicago, or even Cook County, could legally possess an AR15 pistol with a brace, so long as it is does not contain a stock, because that would then make it a rifle? And as long as it was purchased in and remained in pistol format, it would be legal? Or is this one of those gray areas that requires a test subject to go through court for an answer?
I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but I can't be the first person to wonder this. I tried using search, and I did find a lot of interesting and informative posts, but nothing addressing this specifically.
Thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find endless debates about this and about the magazine capacity issue.

 

If you are seeking a definitive, debate-resolving, solve-all answer, you won't find it. It doesn't exist. If that makes you uncomfortable, don't possess one in the affected jurisdiction.

 

Magazine capacity preemption was mentioned in the legislative debate and has legislative intent supporting pre-emption.

 

You can read the text of the state law in Illinois Public Act 98-063 and compare that to the federal definition of a handgun vs. rifle vs. 'firearm' and draw your own conclusions on AR (and AK) pistol preemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP, I am not a lawyer but I do have a personal opinion on the matter. The devout skeptic in me wonders if the reason there is no legal precedent surrounding most of the local potentially unconstitutional gun laws is that prosecutors are smart enough lawyers to recognize the faults in said laws and do not want them to face close scrutiny in the courts attaching their names to the precedent?

 

Just one geezer's opinion mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some further research, I came across the following information from the Municipal Code of Chicago (MCC), see 8-20-010, which defines an assault weapon as:


(6) A semiautomatic handgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(A.) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the handgun grip;

(B.) a threaded barrel;

(C.) a barrel shroud; or

(D.) a second handgun grip.


Therefore, (A) would then categorize an AR pistol has an assault weapon.


Furthermore, it states the following are considered assault weapons:


(11) All of the following handguns, including any copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such weapon:

(A.) All AK-47 types, including the following:

(i) Centurion 39 AK handgun

(ii) Draco AK-47 handgun

(iii) HCR AK-47 handgun

(iv) IO, Inc. Hellpup AK-47 handgun

(v) Krinkov handgun

(vi) Mini Draco AK-47 handgun

(vii) Yugo Krebs Krink handgun.


(B.) All AR-15 types, including the following:

(i) American Spirit AR-15 handgun

(ii) Bushmaster Carbon 15 handgun

(iii) DoubleStar Corporation AR handgun

(iv) DPMS AR-15 handgun

(v) Olympic Arms AR-15 handgun

(vi) Rock River Arms LAR 15 handgun.


Based on those definitions, an AR handgun would indeed be considered an assault weapon and illegal based on Chicago Municipal Code.


Thomas Kral needs to update his blog post here, as it is misleading: https://www.gunrights4illinois.com/blog/the-ar15-pistol-in-chicago/

I tried commenting on the blog post, but the junk site keeps giving an error that the captcha did not verify, but there is no captcha in the first place. GunRights4Illinois also doesn't provide any contact information on their website, so that is pretty useless too.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some further research, I came across the following information from the Municipal Code of Chicago (MCC), see 8-20-010, which defines an assault weapon as:

 

(6) A semiautomatic handgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(A.) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the handgun grip;

(B.) a threaded barrel;

(C.) a barrel shroud; or

(D.) a second handgun grip.

 

Therefore, (A) would then categorize an AR pistol has an assault weapon.

 

Furthermore, it states the following are considered assault weapons:

 

(11) All of the following handguns, including any copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such weapon:

(A.) All AK-47 types, including the following:

(i) Centurion 39 AK handgun

(ii) Draco AK-47 handgun

(iii) HCR AK-47 handgun

(iv) IO, Inc. Hellpup AK-47 handgun

(v) Krinkov handgun

(vi) Mini Draco AK-47 handgun

(vii) Yugo Krebs Krink handgun.

 

(B.) All AR-15 types, including the following:

(i) American Spirit AR-15 handgun

(ii) Bushmaster Carbon 15 handgun

(iii) DoubleStar Corporation AR handgun

(iv) DPMS AR-15 handgun

(v) Olympic Arms AR-15 handgun

(vi) Rock River Arms LAR 15 handgun.

 

Based on those definitions, an AR handgun would indeed be considered an assault weapon and illegal based on Chicago Municipal Code.

 

Thomas Kral needs to update his blog post here, as it is misleading: https://www.gunrights4illinois.com/blog/the-ar15-pistol-in-chicago/

I tried commenting on the blog post, but the junk site keeps giving an error that the captcha did not verify, but there is no captcha in the first place. GunRights4Illinois also doesn't provide any contact information on their website, so that is pretty useless too.

 

 

Source: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il

I think the issue is that the state preempted all handgun laws. Chicago can call an AR pistol Shirley, but in the eyes of the state as statute now stands they are handguns and therefore are preempted.

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...