-
Posts
5,944 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
defaultdotxbe's Achievements

Member (24/24)
-
When I lived in Cook County elections for offices like state rep, state senator, mayor, village trustee, etc were more often than not uncontested. Even US representative might as well have been, the republican candidate typically received little to no support or funding from the party and basically just there because no one else wanted their name on the ballot.
-
Illinois loses appeal over gun control law
defaultdotxbe replied to Hawkeye's topic in Illinois Politics
I'm pretty sure all the local AWBs have LEO carve outs as well, so those would all be toast too. -
Any News on the ATF and Braces??
defaultdotxbe replied to Professor Wheezy's topic in National Politics
I still find it odd they demand you dispose of or alter the brace if you choose to remove it, but don't demand you dispose of or alter the short barrel if you decide to remove that instead. -
Florida Could Make the US a Constitutional Carry-Majority
defaultdotxbe replied to mauserme's topic in National Politics
There are multiple interstate compacts regulating driver's license reciprocity. The full faith and credit clause is in respect to records, not licenses. It would apply to using a DL as identification in another state, but not as a license to operate a motor vehicle. -
Florida Could Make the US a Constitutional Carry-Majority
defaultdotxbe replied to mauserme's topic in National Politics
Driver's licenses are example of voluntary reciprocity working the way it should, but CCW never did work that way. Whether Bruen will change that is too early to tell, we are still waiting on the cases that got GVR'd to be decided again, let alone any new cases. -
Sheriffs tell ATF they won’t cooperate with brace ban
defaultdotxbe replied to steveTA84's topic in National Politics
I mean, you're still a felon in Faulkner County, the feds just have to come an arrest you themselves, rather than having the Sheriff's dept do it for them. -
Are "air rifles" banned under the AWB?
defaultdotxbe replied to Vern in IL's topic in Illinois Politics
Well yes, if you bring it back into IL and you don't have a FOID you'd be in violation of the law, but I assume we all have FOIDs here, in which case IL can't do anything about what you do in another state (same way an Indiana resident can come here and buy weed and IN can't do anything about it, unless they bring it back to IN) -
Are "air rifles" banned under the AWB?
defaultdotxbe replied to Vern in IL's topic in Illinois Politics
Yes certain air rifles are firearms in in Illinois and require FOID (and waiting period) to buy. However they are not firearms under federal law and thus free from any restrictions if you buy in another state (store policies may vary) -
Any News on the ATF and Braces??
defaultdotxbe replied to Professor Wheezy's topic in National Politics
Form 1s regularly take longer than 88 days as it is, so clearly the time to run the background check is only a portion of that. I doubt the load the background check system will be any higher than it is now as they process any new Form 1s -
Are "air rifles" banned under the AWB?
defaultdotxbe replied to Vern in IL's topic in Illinois Politics
Air rifles are specifically exempted from being considered "assault weapons" -
Feinstein's bill, IIRC, borrowed heavily from Cook County's ban (which may itself be cribbed from somewhere else) but none of that really means anything, it doesn't make the law any more or less valid. The immunity is still in effect, but it's not total as Biden et al. would have you believe, it has exemptions so lawsuits can still get filed and the plaintiff has to show they fall into one of those exemptions.
-
I can see the possible path for banning all lowers is as follows There exists, somewhere, an archetypal AR lower that is stamped "AR-15," which is explicitly banned in J(ii)(II) At this point it is not exempted as it is not operated manually, its just a stripped lower. That lower, by itself, with no other attachment or feature, is banned by name. Any and all other AR lowers are "copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles" of that stripped lower They are also banned, since as a stripped lower they share the capabilities of the archetypal stripped lower. In this interpretation an already-assembled bolt action AR would possibly be allowed, but the stripped lower to start such a project would not. But it could hinge on whether a stripped lower, that has never been assembled, is a "rifle" or a "pistol" to match the text of sections (J) or (K) ("All of the following rifles" and "All of the following pistols"). We don't know the answer to that. Yes the federal standard is that it is neither a rifle or a pistol until it's assembled, but that's as it pertains to federal law, this is IL law so the courts could interpret differently, particularly since it also bans a combination of parts that could be assembled into an "assault weapon" so if you already own a grandfathered AR you could use those parts with a new stripped lower to assemble a new, non-grandfathered, AR. The same would apply to a bolt-action AR you already own, unless you register the lower.