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.

Will downstate Democrats vote against this bill? I get tired of hearing about how gun rights and gun control are NOT partisan issues, and that it is perfectly rational for a gun rights supporter to vote Democrat. I also get tired of hearing from the naive, or lazy, who say "I don't vote for the Party, I vote for the person". At the national level it is indisputable that virtually every elected Democrat votes in lockstep with what the Democrat leadership wants. While it has not be as true at the state level, I won't hold my breath waiting for downstate and possibly suburban Democrat elected officials to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and for sanity while crime is at epidemic proportions. If this passes, I wonder how many owners of so-called assault rifles, as well as owners of magazines with a capacity of over 10 will just willingly dispose of the now illegal items. When this bill passes it will be just that much easier to convince sane people to move out of this vile state.

I just received the new FOID card with the CCL indicated on the card. But I notice that there is no expiration date listed on the card. Interesting.

My wife has a close circle of friends here in Rockford, and three of my five grown children and their families are within an hour of us. I still want out of IL, but might only get as far as southern Wisconsin, which I am not sure is any better a place to live than is Illinois. If Republicans do take control of the U.S. House, or Senate, that might prove enough to keep things relatively stable and I might see my money in the stock market regain some of what it has lost in recent months. If despite everything wrong in the country right now the Dems retain full control of Congress, we will likely really see the SHTF. I think it is time to start stockpiling ammo if you have not already done so.

Pritzker and Duckworth re-elected, which tells me IL voters are supportive of the status quo. Crime in Chicago, economic opportunities disappearing as companies flee the state, property and income taxes undoubtedly going to increase are all fine with a majority of the voters. Any belief in the essential common sense of the American voter, and in Illinois voters in particular, is now gone and not likely to ever return. These are bleak days for sure for rational people.

No one would doubt that a citizen would be in fear for their life just on the basis of someone breaking into their home. Had the fiance shot and killed the thug it would have been a clear case of self defense and would have been a boon to society.

Coyotes are often seen on the extensive grounds of a local community college. I have been told that some of those who walk their dogs on these grounds carry concealed as a protection against possible coyote attack. This is one area that I would hope someday can be removed from the "do not carry" list here in IL, along with public transportation.

Watching a video by Armed Attorneys today, they were discussing the fact that some states extend their Castle Doctrine to one's car, but some states do not. It made me wonder if in IL we would legally be expected to retreat, i.e., just get out of our car and let the thug steal it, or would just the fact that a car jacking was taking place justify our use of deadly force. I'm hoping that someone with this knowledge here in Illinois can reply.

I'm not much of a Bailey fan, but I'll still vote for him because he is not Pritzker. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in heck of winning. He looks like a doofus, and has been portrayed as a bigot with his anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian comments. Fundamentalist Christians who are Israel's biggest supporters might not be able to get themselves to vote for Bailey. Personally, about the only thing keeping me in this awful state is the fact that pensions are not taxed. If that changes, I have to leave IL and leave quickly, probably to move north a few miles into WI.

This appears to be a total disaster about to descend upon us. While a judge could order a suspect held, I think we will see even more than today, violent and dangerous people immediately released after being arrested for a violent crime, only to continue their violence against new victims. Kim Fox and her America-hating sponsor George Soros must be celebrating this in advance of the effective date. When a burglar enters your home, unless you resolve the matter there and then, justice will not prevail. I can well foresee a burglar breaking into someone's home, beating them within a inch of death, setting the house on fire and then after arrest being released immediately back into the community.

I'd love to serve on a jury deciding the fate of anyone who shot and killed Antifa thugs.