ILgunguy

Did I just hear that Glen Ellyn wants to propose an AWB (nevermind state preemption)? Anyone have any info on this? Possession or sales?

The sherriff's statement is pretty definitive, but it would not surprise me in the slightest that anti's would spin this if given the chance. Here are the details they would have to work with: - Lawfully armed store owner vs illegally armed criminal (with stolen firearms) - Store owner acts to defend life and safety vs a criminal acting with disregard for innocent life and safety through violent, sociopathic behavior - Multiple armed attackers (only 1 made it inside the store before shots were fired) - The criminal had means, motive, and opportunity (verbal commands to store owner while pointing the rifle, steps taken to conceal identity) to commit a violent act and was doing so - The store owner successfully defended his life, and the bad guys got arrested and the one is still in the hospital Still, to the antis this will matter little "because guns!". smh

A convenience store owner in CA stopped an armed robbery by shooting the would-be robber armed with an AR-style rifle by using his own shotgun. “In this case, a lawfully armed member of our community prevented a violent crime and ensured their own safety, while being confronted with multiple armed suspects,” Riverside County Sheriff’s said in a press release. New York Post : California liquor store owner shoots would-be robber. https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/california-liquor-store-owner-shoots-would-be-armed-robber/ KTLA Los Angeles: Caught on video: Norco store owner blasts armed robber with shotgun; 3 arrested. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/caught-on-video-store-owner-shotgun-blast/

Thanks,Molly, for posting this here. Important information!

In the opening declarations, they lament the fact that they cannot enforce a total ban because of the change to the FOID act when CCW was passed. They go onto say, however, nothing in the revised FOID act keeps them from regulating sales, so that is what they re doing. They cannot pass an ordinance against possession, so they want to make sure no one can buy one in Naperville. IANAL, but that also seems to me to suggest that you can buy whatever in another town and possess it in Naperville. The ordinance is nothing but a veneer as it stand right now in draft form. Again, IANAL, but my understanding of the "pre-existing" purchaser definition is that if you initiated a commercial sale before the ordinance goes into effect, and you can prove it, then the commercial sale can be completed after the effective date of the ordinance (in this case, Jan 1, 2023). For example, you ordered X or plunked your money down for Y and the background check was not cleared and item picked up until after the effective date. My reading of this is that the sale can be completed and you can go get and possess your item. It has nothing to do with proving that you had in your possession anything before this ordinance would go into effect. Remember, this is not a ban on possession, but an effort to signal by stopping sales within the city limits. It will basically put Range USA and LAW Weapons out of business as we know it if they decide to stay in Naperville. Naperville also stands to be hit with a legal challenge, but not from the usual angle. The angle would have to be the unconstitutionality of hindering the acquiring of firearms. There is a legal precedent there, but I cannot remember the exact case. I can see this being applied to ammunition next (type, caliber, amount) or any other component (as described very vaguely in the draft ordinance) if it survives a legal challenge. Perhaps even down the road, any and all firearms. Make no mistake, this is a "test case." There is also a Daily Herald article floating around out there about this issue, and it appears that at least 1 council member wants to talk to gun shop owners and law enforcement before moving this, revising it, or settling it. That doesn't mean it is a hard no or an easy pass, it just means what I said. Enough said. IMO, any further strategic discussion of this issue might be better in The Back Room or Townhall forums.

They are approaching is from the sales point of view, not possession. So...I fail to see how that will accomplish anything other than sending people out of Naperville to purchase them.

So....what do you think are the chances that when the GA reconvenes they move hard and fast to pass "assault weapon" and "high capacity" mag bans?

Maybe even start buying now even if not in WA state

Late last night, it looks like the WA State House passed the bill and sent it to the governor's desk to be signed. KING5.com: Ban on sale of high-capacity magazines passes state House, moves to Gov. Inslee's desk. https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/high-capacity-magazine-ban-washington-state/281-7d948d29-0a39-4ec7-a808-206caf9e54af

Thanks, Mauser

Just a point of clarity -- is this for Cook County or ALL county forest preserves and rec type places listed in the bill? Doesn't change the fact that I detest what it is saying, just wondering how you all are reading it. I already filed my slips.

If they have an expiration date, will they check? Or will then check anyway because they know that IL has enacted this (stupid) new law? That is the million-dollar question. I am thinking that to avoid any liability, they may decide to call...if they are still going to sell to IL. But, until now, they haven't done that anyway if you have a card that shows a valid date. What a bunch of BS.

With respect the online ammo sales... If I have just recently updated my FOID card with online merchants after waiting 15 months, so now they have my current FOID with the expiration date 10 years from now, what is to keep me from just letting them have that documentation if I get the new, non-dated card? I would really like someone's opinion about the issue above. Secondly, based on a previous post, cards issued starting 1-1-2022 and all other current, dated cards will be replaced with the new non-dated cards during the 2022 year. Does anyone think the ISP is going to be able to turn over 1.5+ million cards in one year when they are just now beginning to keep up with current applications and renewals?

For 3943 it looks like they are trying to soften it a bit by now defining a large capacity magazine as one that holds 30 or more rounds instead of more than 10. Death by a thousand cuts.

You are right...CCL is not affected. I misread it. All the same, it is a shame that this state is so screwed up with its permission slip that we have to be afraid of having our CCL and other rights messed with over it.

The only fly in the ointment might be SB1966. If you are in the renewal pipeline IF it becomes law, will you be grandfathered in until your next renewal? IDK, I am just putting it out there.