DoverGunner Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:21 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:21 PM I am not an Attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last nightI read the Bill several times and I just do not get it .So are our Exixting Standard capacity Magazines Grandfathered in ?Do we have 90 days to dispose of them or turn them in before becoming a Felon ??Will they buy us reimburse us to buy new ones ???Will we receive Compensation for the loss of said magazines ????Can I sue to get Compensation for the Loss of my M14 magazine Collectionb and others ????? Please no Speculation HereJust the Facts
82Bulldog Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:28 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:28 PM Short Version: The current proposed Mag Bill only prohibits sales and transfers in IL, and does not address possession of Mags in IL.
RoadyRunner Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:29 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:29 PM Short Version: The current proposed Mag Bill only prohibits sales and transfers in IL, and does not yet address possession of Mags in IL. Fixed it for you...
Grey Beret Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM I hesitate to mention the constitution for fear that I will get an IRS audit, but maybe someone smarter than me can explain the "takings" clause.That particular item seems to have been nearly forgotten during our era of "regulation" style government. Regulations by people who are never elected and almost impossible to fire.
Davey Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM Will they buy us reimburse us to buy new ones ???Will we receive Compensation for the loss of said magazines ????Can I sue to get Compensation for the Loss of my M14 magazine Collectionb and others????? Hah, you'll get nothing.
vezpa Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM Well........ Its kinda like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ht8msGqwI
wbear Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:05 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:05 PM On the topic of mags didn't the Virginia Tech shooter do all his damage with 10rd mags?If so how did that fact get left out in our talking points today? Wouldn't that fact have made their argument that 10 rounders are so much safer less believable? Just wondering.
TyGuy Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM I don't believe all of them were 10 rounders.
POAT54 Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:07 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:07 PM Kind interesting, that glock (or insert another make) that uses a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you can not sell or trade it in.
vezpa Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM Columbine was done with 10 round magazines as well. How this was left out today remains an atrocity..
snooter Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM there was enuff exposed as to the stupidity of this bill..it was coming out of commitee..there was no doubt about that..may be TV can chime in about where we stand and the overall assessment on today's vote...i am still feeling good about this not passing both chambers..some of this is payback for the CCW votes me thinks and chicago is nervous about the power shift....chicago cannot get this passed if we south of I80 hold... ps: when you have the sponsor of the bill not knowing what language is contained within that is far more powerful of how uselss it is in comparison to worrying why somebody did not mention virginia teck and or columbine
vezpa Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM chicago cannot get this passed if we south of I80 hold... Therein lies the problem..
Fubar Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:16 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:16 PM On the topic of mags didn't the Virginia Tech shooter do all his damage with 10rd mags?If so how did that fact get left out in our talking points today? Wouldn't that fact have made their argument that 10 rounders are so much safer less believable? Just wondering. Cho used a Walther P22 with 10 roundsAnd a Glock 19 with 15 rounds Source:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
TyGuy Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM But what other mags did he use?
Netechsys Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM On the topic of mags didn't the Virginia Tech shooter do all his damage with 10rd mags?If so how did that fact get left out in our talking points today? Wouldn't that fact have made their argument that 10 rounders are so much safer less believable? Just wondering.I don't believe all of them were 10 rounders. No, The VT shooter user 15 round and 10 round mags. He had a Glock 19 with 15 round mags and a 22 that had 10 round mags.
DoverGunner Posted May 21, 2013 at 12:04 AM Author Posted May 21, 2013 at 12:04 AM Guys I do not Give 2 rats Butt about Uncle Cho and his Dog , If I wanted sided tracked I would go over to the CMP forumStay Focused here .Thank you for the Relevant answers , But I keep seeing the word "Possession" in the text thats what has me worried Possession
BackForward Posted May 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM I am not an Attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last nightI read the Bill several times and I just do not get it .So are our Exixting Standard capacity Magazines Grandfathered in ?Do we have 90 days to dispose of them or turn them in before becoming a Felon ??Will they buy us reimburse us to buy new ones ???Will we receive Compensation for the loss of said magazines ????Can I sue to get Compensation for the Loss of my M14 magazine Collectionb and others ?????Please no Speculation HereJust the Facts That it's crap and you, and everyone else needs to contact the senators and congress people to appose this garbage legislation
BobPistol Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:02 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:02 AM but maybe someone smarter than me can explain the "takings" clause. The "takings" clause has been completely nullified by SCOTUS rulings which allowed building codes, zoning codes,etc. They call them regulatory "takings" and are 100% permissable.
TkoKid Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:35 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:35 AM What they were saying in committee today was...If you have a mag over ten rounds, you would be grandfathered in with that mag. Question was asked how someone could tell if it were owned before the ban or after and serial numbering was brought up. Question was asked about driving to another state to purchase mags and bringing them to Illinois. It was answered that the purchaser would not be gone after for breaking the law but that Illinois would go after the seller (even if they were in another state). It was brought up in a what if scenario, that if we went to say, Idaho, and bought 40 or even 400 of the mags, what would happen. It was answered that Illinois would go after the seller and not the Illinois resident who made the purchase. The law, as written, basically states that the mags can no longer be purchased by Illinois residents but anything currently owned would be fine. It was also brought up about loaning one to a buddy for practice at the range or??? It was answered that it had to be a transfer of ownership to be a crime. They are basically hoping that as they breakdown, or are used in a crime (which could be as simple as selling it to your buddy) that they will go away.
skinnyb82 Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:56 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:56 AM I am not an Attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last nightI read the Bill several times and I just do not get it .So are our Exixting Standard capacity Magazines Grandfathered in ?Do we have 90 days to dispose of them or turn them in before becoming a Felon ??Will they buy us reimburse us to buy new ones ???Will we receive Compensation for the loss of said magazines ????Can I sue to get Compensation for the Loss of my M14 magazine Collectionb and others ?????Please no Speculation HereJust the Facts OK well, no offense but try to teach yourself the law or at least some semblance of how constitutional law intertwines with, well, everything, and parsing through the "legalese" because it's a useful skill. Which part of the bill did you read? I hope not Amendment 1 because that's stricken as far as I know by Amendment 2, which is still a mess that looks like it was cobbled together by someone who was in a REALLY big hurry as it still contains some language that refer to possession. Kotowski filed Amendment 3 today and he will presumably file Amendment 4 after Righter made him look like a moron. Amendment 3 basically exempts Illinois manufacturers who sell out of state but not to in-state residents (a blanket ban would interfere with domestic manufacturers to conduct interstate commerce which is a facial violation of the Commerce Clause under the legal doctrine known as the Dormant Commerce Clause at the very least, more likely be considered by a federal court as an activity having a substantial effect on the ability to interstate commerce as...a complete ban is substantial) and then exempts temporary transfers for "theatrical purposes" (go figure) as long as returned to an FFL. Yeah, exempt "theater productions" (who uses actual magazines for theater productions?), movie productions (just like the (un)SAFE Act out in New York), etc. This bill is also a violation of the Gun Control Act as BF pointed out. If you purchased a pistol with three 15 round magazines (like, say, a Glock 22 Gen 4, mine came with three magazines) when it was 100% legal to do so, then you are required by law to transfer the magazines along with the gun when you sell the gun in a private transfer otherwise you will be in violation of the Gun Control Act. Are they gonna punish you for complying with the Gun Control Act, a federal law? Ha I'd like to see them try. Thank you Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of implied preemption. The BATFE has final say and the Gun Control Act trumps any piddly Illinois law any day of the week. OK so, onto your questions. 1. The Takings Clause is a part of the Fifth Amendment. Basically, it states that the federal government cannot simply seize private property without compensating the owner, fair market value is usually the standard there. The Takings Clause, as does the entire Fifth Amendment, strictly applies to the Federal Government rather than the states however the the Takings Clause is integrated into the 14th Amendment through the Due Process Clause (not to be confused with the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment). The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments all extended those rights specific under the Federal Constitution to the States as well. The applicability to the states was challenged a few decades prior to the Civil War and the (John) Marshall Court found that it solely applies to the Federal Government, not states nor localities. The "Reconstruction Amendments" were ratified, changing the entire ball game, Amendments 13 through 15. 2. Yes, there is grandfathering, yet they have not stated how they plan on doing this, what the penalty for not...complying will be, nothing. Only that if you sell, transfer, cause to be transferred etc etc any magazine over yada yada capacity then you shall receive a mandatory prison sentence harsher than what one would receive for molesting a child. My guess, since companies do not serialize magazines, the only possible way to ensure that a magazine was possessed pre-ban and not purchased post-ban would be for the ISP to serialize ALL magazines that fall under the criteria. That's...uh well, A LOT of magazines. They cannot possibly do that. It's simply not feasible. If it were feasible, you'd have to box up your mags, send them to the ISP, they would have to etch a serial into them, then send them back to you in a VERY timely fashion. Do you see this occurring? They can't even process FOID cards in triple the allotted time. Think if the ISP were tasked with serializing close to a million or more magazines. As far as I know, they would not be able to charge a penny for such a "service" either as that would violate the 24th Amendment. I don't care if they call it a fee or a tax, it's unconstitutional. They'd be saying "OK, you have two choices if you wanna keep your magazines. One, you box your mags up, send them to us with a check for $x per magazine, we might lose them, oh well send us a claim form but we'll probably lose that too. Two, we arrest you." That is a de facto ex post facto law, it gives you absolutely no choice but to pay them or face arrest. Pay them to own something that WAS 100% legal before. No. That is not how it works. 3. No, the ban on possession was yanked as I'm sure they realized that it'd result in massive civil rights violations, the FBI coming in, lawsuits, all kinds of nastiness that they don't want. Don't worry about possession. 4. Reimbursement ties into this question, if they were to ban possession and NOT reimburse you, that would be a facial violation of the Fourth Amendment (if they have to come get you) and the 14th Amendment. It would still be a violation of the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1..."No state shall...pass any...ex post facto Law" (A law which outlaws something that used to be legal and punishing them for behavior that was legal and now is not. Like, say, owning a 30 round magazine when it WAS legal.) 5. Compensation? That's the same as reimbursement. Asked and answered. 6. You will not have your magazines seized under SA2 of SB1002. They cannot seize them unless they'd like to be subject to an FBI investigation and lawsuits under Title 42 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. So, yes, if they do seize them you could sue them for deprivation of civil liberties but it'd get jucier if they actually had the cajones to convict people and send them to prison under a law that's unconstitutional in so many ways (SB1 at least) that the opinion overturning it would be like 200 pages long to address all of the different violations. I am not speculating. This is fact. No confiscation. It doesn't even matter, this bill is more defective than a Yugo. Kotowsi and Munoz didn't think this through at all. It doesn't mean don't oppose it. OPPOSE IT. Call your Senator and Representative. Tell them to vote "NO." I don't care if your Senator is Cullerton. I don't care if your Rep. is Madigan, Cassidy, Flowers, Acevedo, or any of the others. Anyone who does not voice their opposition to a piece of legislation absolutely deserves whatever the outcome may be. I'm SO SICK of my friends complaining about this crap and yet not doing anything. "Well it doesn't matter" or if they're REALLY apathetic, then it's "Can you find my Rep and Senator for me?" followed by "Can you call them for me and tell them you're me?" (Seriously? REALLY!?!?).
patriot1776 Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:02 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:02 AM Short Version: The current proposed Mag Bill only prohibits sales and transfers in IL, and does not address possession of Mags in IL. Yet
patriot1776 Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:04 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:04 AM Most of the magazines i owned before the great Illinois flood of 2013 were more than 10.
kevinmcc Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:25 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:25 AM I don't believe all of them were 10 rounders. You are right he had only a few that were not 10 rounds. He had fired over 170 rounds, as there were 17 empty magazine found. Also Virgina Tech had a campus gun ban.
Ricky Two Guns Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:42 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:42 AM I don't believe all of them were 10 rounders. You are right he had only a few that were not 10 rounds. He had fired over 170 rounds, as there were 17 empty magazine found. Also Virgina Tech had a campus gun ban. If it was not a gun free zone he wouldn't have been there!!!!
Ricky Two Guns Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:44 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:44 AM Besides you don't have to go all the way to VT, Chicago has a ten round limit and effect on crime is self explanatory.
DoverGunner Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:03 AM Author Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:03 AM skinnyb82 Thank youas I said before I laydown for No one or anything . Last Night 40 Senators were Emailed . Today the same 40 were called at there offices in there District and Springfield . Tonight They got another round of Emails and in the morning another round of calls
RockerXX Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:16 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:16 AM On the topic of mags didn't the Virginia Tech shooter do all his damage with 10rd mags?If so how did that fact get left out in our talking points today? Wouldn't that fact have made their argument that 10 rounders are so much safer less believable? Just wondering. Better to look at Columbine if you want a bigger picture... To better put the magazine capacity vs discharge numbers in Columbine into perspective... Savage-Springfield 67H shotgun (4+1 round capacity) --- Discharged 25 times (~4 to 5 reloads)Stevens 311D double-barreled (2 round capacity) --- Discharged 12 times (~5 reloads)Hi-Point 995 Carbine (13 @ 10 round magazines) --- Discharged 96 times (~9 reloads)Intratec TEC-9 (one 52, one 32, and one 28 round magazine) --- Discharged 55 times (~1 reload) 15 dead, 21 injured... Only a blind idiot would look at those real life numbers and insist there is a real correlation and connection between lower capacity magazines and potential damage... Truth is a killer with a plan generally plans to and buys themselves enough time to reload, in a self defense situation we are rarely so prepared for a reload, nor do we know the time and place...
vezpa Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:18 AM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:18 AM Besides you don't have to go all the way to VT, Chicago has a ten round limit and effect on crime is self explanatory. Chicago has a 12 round magazine limit which means your gun can hold a total of 13 rounds with one in the chamber included. Also if anyone remembers correctly the kid at Sandy Hook kept changing magazines that were only half used. They found the magazines this way and blamed it on the Call of Duty video game where you reload every chance you get, whether you need to or not. .
borgranta Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:13 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:13 PM I am not an Attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last nightI read the Bill several times and I just do not get it .So are our Exixting Standard capacity Magazines Grandfathered in ?Do we have 90 days to dispose of them or turn them in before becoming a Felon ??Will they buy us reimburse us to buy new ones ???Will we receive Compensation for the loss of said magazines ????Can I sue to get Compensation for the Loss of my M14 magazine Collectionb and others ?????Please no Speculation HereJust the FactsI would sue them for the full retail value of the magazines if forced to turn them in.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.