vito

As I understand the new law, sales are no longer legal for what are defined as "high capacity" magazines, but if we already have such there is no illegality in keeping them. Is this correct?

Reality and history tell us that mass shootings are probably more likely to occur in schools AND churches than in places where concealed carry is lawful, and probably for that very reason. This crosses my mind everytime I attend a school concert or other event at the schools of my grandchildren. Breaking the law does not appeal to me, but the thought of being present with my grandchildren, and as a senior citizen with some limitations on my physical abilities, being unable to defend those grandchildren in the unlikely event of a mass shooter appearing, is beyond unacceptable to comprehend. I would assume that the OP feels the same way about his moral obligations to his church. Even if this state were somehow to return to normalcy with "woke" Democrats not in total control, and if the same were true at the Federal level, I still would not expect that the prohibition on carrying in schools would be changed. Despite the illogic of making schools "gun free zones" and its obvious relationship to murderers choosing schools at least in part because of the expectation of not being opposed by armed defenders, I think even Conservative politicians do not want to be responsible for promoting guns in schools. Citizens will likely face the challenge of whether to carry in violation of the law, or to go unarmed, for the foreseeable future at least.

For whatever reason, for the first time ever I cannot respond to the Call to Action today. I can Log On and complete a Witness Slip, but when trying to submit it I get an error message after about 30 seconds. I've tried logging off and then on again. I've tried shutting down my laptop computer and then starting it up again, but nothing is working. Is it me or is the site?

I often disparage the voters of big cities, including Chicago, for continuously electing and re-electing politicians who both coddle criminals and try to restrict the ability of citizens to defend themselves against those criminals. But sometimes it seems that the system gives the voters little choice in the matter. Republicans don't even seem to try to run for this office. Willie Brown has at least vowed to get tough on criminals, but I have no idea where he stands on gun rights. If a pro-2A voter is going to the polls, who can he support? Who is even the lesser of evils? Regardless, I predict the Evil Dwarf will remain as the Mayor.

I don't disagree.

My Glock 17 has a bit further reach than a sword. I think I'll stick with firearms.

Anyone that thinks I am happy with this new law is totally misreading what I wrote. I only said that it could have been worse. That doesn't mean that I want this law fought and declared unconstitutional any less than any of you. I sent a contribution to Illinois Carry to assist in whatever legal action is being taken (have you?). But as a practical matter I now have the option of legally carrying my SR40c with the extended, 15 round magazine, instead of the shorter 9 round magazine. And my even larger magazines for my Glock 17 are still legal within my home which is the only place I keep that gun. Let's fight this law, but recognize that even the gun haters had to back off on their most radical desires.

I only said that it could have been worse. I agree that it is a terrible law, clearly unconstitutional, and will do nothing to make anyone safer except possibly criminals.

I'm not thrilled with Pritzker's new gun grab law, and I know it will do nothing to reduce crime in Chicago, but I was pleasantly surprised at the final wording in the law. I thought that we would end up with a hangun magazine capacity of 10 as the maximum, so finding out that it is 15 was a nice surprise. I had planned on switching to my Glock 26 as my primary carry gun, with its 10+1 capacity, but now I will consider taking my Ruger SR40c out of the safe and making it my main carry gun. I like this Ruger, and in an OWB holster it is not too large to consider for concealed carry. With its 15 round mag it still is OK here in IL, giving me 16 rounds of 40 S&W without carrying extra mags.

Now that I know that handgun magazines have a limit of 15, and not 10, and that larger magazines are perfectly legal if on private property, I guess I wasted a few bucks on the 10 round mags. The handgun I was concerned about is a Glock 17, with 17 round magazines. But this gun is too big for concealed carry (in my opinion) and has been for home defense, so it turns out I am ok with just using the 17 round mags as needed. I keep that Glock 17 loaded and with 2 extra magazines, plus a round in the chamber. If 52 rounds is not enough to stop the threat, then I am really in big trouble.

Have any lawsuits been filed yet against the new law?

I do not know of anywhere in the world where registration was not followed at some point by confiscation. Once registered, you are helpless to resist government confiscation.

So where do we stand on the provision limiting magazines to 10 round capacity?

As a hedge against the new limitations, I bought a couple of 10 round magazines. I wonder if I should have just waited to see what actually becomes law and how it is enforced.

Does anyone doubt that criminals will continue to get whatever guns they desire despite all the new laws that restrict law abiding gun owners? I don't know if the Democrats pusing this "Safe Act" really believe that it will make Illinois safer, or if they fully understand how it will do nothing to stop crime but will succeed in increasing their control over the lives of the peasantry. And how many not too bright Illinois gun owners will say to themselves, "I don't own an AR-15, and I don't own any magazines that hold over 10 rounds, so who cares?" Or how many will think "Its a shame that gun rights are being done away with, but I will still vote Democrat election after election since the MOST important thing in the world is keeping it legal to be able to murder one's own unborn children without any impediment". The courts might save us, but only in the short run. With the way Americans are voting, I think that the "packing" of the Supreme Court is inevitable, and with it, the reversal of all of the pro-2nd Amendment rulings of the last few decades.